Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in logical reasoning. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In an answer here, the following was stated:

The essence of his [Descartes] argument is that you can doubt almost everything about the world, but you can't doubt that you're doubting. Because if you doubt that you're doubting, you're still doubting...

What is the analogous mathematical/logical expression to the last sentence?

To me it feels a little like a self-reference paradoxon, but I can't sort it out. The best, up to now, for me is to compare with a projector, which is an idempotent map p from a set E into itself (thus p∘p = p).

I doubt, that it doesn't have an analogy...

share|improve this question
up vote 12 down vote accepted

This might seem strange to you but I've always thought that the best mathematical analogue of the cogito is some fixed point theorem, let's say Brouwer's fixed point theorem (the point can be made with most of them.) In its simplest form this states that any continuous function f from a closed disc to itself has a fixed point. So the idea is that any way you choose to shift (in a "nice", i.e. continuous way) the points of the disc around at least one of them will always remain constant.

What does that have to do with the cogito? Well if you take the "closed disc" to be a human being (or the set of his beliefs) and your "function" to be the act of doubting, then even if doubting as it were "moves all points" i.e. makes you question everything, there will still be a "fixed point", namely the belief that you are, at this very moment in the process of doubting - doubting cannot as it were "move" that "point" (=the belief that you are doubting) - it is a fixed point of the doubting "function."

I might be stretching what it means for something to be an "analogue", but if not a direct analogue, fixed point theorems are, I think, still a nice way to conceptualize the cogito.

share|improve this answer
Great, this was exactly what I was looking for. – draks ... May 24 '12 at 8:29

What is the analogous mathematical/logical expression to the last sentence?

Why would there be one?

Wittgenstein famously gave up the project of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus when he saw that there was no logical form to the Sraffa gesture; this led to the realization that there are all kinds of things which cannot be reduced to a mathematical or logical expression, and began the project of the Philosophical Investigations.

(As an aside: it is perhaps worth remembering that Descartes's project of a logically indubitable explanation of the world along geometrical principles, which you are referring to above, came to him in a dream.)

share|improve this answer

I doubt there are any direct analogs. Capturing the essence of "doubting" (which is a manifestation of human emotion(s)) mathematically or logically is a very tricky thing to do, if not impossible. For example, what is the mathematical or logical equivalent of anger, happiness, confusion?

At any rate, I believe the underlying process by which the conclusion in the last sentence of the quote is obtained does have a mathematical equivalent, and is, namely, the idempotent map you had referred to. But, that was a logical progression to begin with, wasn't it? ;-)


On second thought, here's a better mathematical equivalent. Consider a function which maps every element to itself. Or, more formally:

x1, x2 ∈ R, function, f: R → R, x ↦ x;

share|improve this answer

My opinion is..yes U may be still doubting but not the thing which U were doubting in the first beginning. It's sort of like if a person is doubting that U actually love them and U tell the person...I hope U are doubting the doubt towards my love for U...THAT IS MY OPINION..I HOPE IT HELPS SOMEONE

share|improve this answer

We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.

Is there any chance you could explore your idea a little further here? What is particularly persuasive to you about this argument? – Joseph Weissman Aug 21 '14 at 23:23

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.