What you argue here is awareness vs. self-awareness. Kant's critizism however was that the statement "I am" is inherently incomplete (without predicate) and therefore meaningless. His argument was not subject vs. object but applying existence to a subject without a complete predicate ("being is obviously no complete predicate").
Regarding the second critizism, your argument seems to be that thinking always implies awareness and awareness always implies self-awareness. That is however basically what is attempted to be proven in the first place and therefore only a repetition of the thesis and not an argument for it.
I confess that I don't see the problem in saying, "I am thinking, therefore I am existing." It's the kind of statement that won't make you very popular at parties, but I don't see the need for further qualification of the subject (if my aim is simply to prove that I exist).
If the aim were to prove the self aware nature of consciousness then obviously saying "because it is so" is no proof at all, but if the aim is to prove existence then Descartes cogito would seem to continue to apply unless we are prepared to throw out the definition of consciousness as reflexive. Or do you mean that it's a circular argument insofar as it is impossible to conceive of a thinking consciousness which does not exist, so by assuming consciousness I am assuming existence? That doesn't seem like an assumption of conclusion to me, but more like a statement that action, in this case thought, implies existence.
You are clearly better informed than I am Wave. I've got to hit the sack but I'll get back to the philosophy after my James Burke history audio book. Hopefully I'll be better informed on the history of thought next time and you won't have to keep bringing me up to speed.
I think I also have that one. My experience with TTC is that the quality of lectures varies a lot.
Ya, I tried a History of the English Language but it seemed to assume a basic knowledge of linguistics, which I lack. World Literature was excellent, as was Decline and Fall of Rome. Burke is good value for history, and A Short History of Everything by Bill Bryson was entertaining. I listen to them at work tho, so when I combine distractedness with inherent feeblemindedness, I'm happy if even 5% sticks.