It has been taken for granted that the Cogito represents the culmination of Descartes' search for a proposition whose truth is to be immune against the propensities of the sceptic and the malefaction of the arch-demon, immune even against their combined assault. The desired proposition was to be such that, in spite of themselves, the sceptic and the arch-demon would have no choice but to concede its certainty. The means of achieving this wondrous thing is supposed to be an argumentative conjunction, I think, therefore I am, which, itself indubitable, transfers indubitability to its components I think and I am. That this be the direction of the transfer is required by two considerations: (i) even if each component is indubitable, it would not follow on any plausible logical doctrine that I think, therefore I am is likewise indubitable; for one thing, relevance of content is, as is being increasingly recognised, required in logical relations between actual propositions, and, for another, 'therefore' interposed between actual propositions says more than a mere conjunction of truth-values; (2) Descartes repeatedly proclaims I think, therefore I am (the 'Cogito' henceforth) to be thefirst principle (= definite truth) of his philosophy1; hence, there could be no premise (indubitable proposition) contained in that philosophy from which the 'Cogito' could be derived. In this connection, it is not otiose to emphasise that the 'Cogito' has to be taken as categorical rather than conditional, if it is to be construed as asserting existence. On the other hand, if the 'Cogito' is categorical and indubitable, so would be I think and I am, categorically asserted. While past discussions of the 'Cogito' have traditionally treated each of the three statements as indubitable, it has systematically been overlooked that if the 'Cogito' were really a categorical argumentative conjunction, then Descartes would have mistaken the first principle of his own philosophy, which should have been I think. Indeed, the idea that this is so must be what explains the