To think that thinking does not exist is to think

"Thought cannot solve any human problem, for thought itself is the problem."

"We have never questioned the very nature of thought. We have accepted thought as inevitable, as our eyes and legs. We have never probed to the very depth of thought: and because we have never questioned it, it has assumed preeminence. It is the tyrant of our life and tyrants are rarely challenged."

"Seeing without thought, without the word, without the response of memory is wholly different from seeing with thought and feeling...Seeing without thought is total seeing. Seeing a cloud over a mountain, without thought and its responses, is the miracle of the new; it’s not 'beautiful,' it’s explosive in its immensity; it is something that has never been and never will be."


**cough**
 
Good logic? Um...no. The logic of the line of argument seen in the subject/thread sounds exactly what Descartes said, which he not only used to prove that he existed, but God as well, and the argument is usually used as an example of what a circular argument looks like. It's beautiful in its simplicity, but false in its logic. I believe in the same conclusion, however, it would be wrong to support it using such an argument.

You cannot assume existence in order to prove it... existence exists: that's an axiom, and to try and prove it would lead to one of two things: either circularity or a contradiction.