It's not that you mean to paralyse thought and individual experience by focusing on their failings relative to the criterion of verification latent with them, as would perhaps a deconstructionist, no the former do very well in their way and you can only admire the global and historical coherence of ordinary experience, and indeed admire its very admirability. It is more a matter of raising that latent claim to self-evidence to salience and wondering, if experience does nothing to satisfy it, and is not in any way meant to, then what does? If the claim is real then it must be satisfied somehow, that conclusion being the irreducible residue of the cogito once all of its unwarranted accretions are swept away. It is not 'I' (at least in any normal understanding) that necessarily 'am', but this super- (or infra-) cognitive ground.