If Rene Descartes starts with the assumption that it is true that everything is false, then does it not also mean that it is false that it is true that everything is false, and by which, if it is false that it is true that everything is false, then something’s at least are true [it’s true that it’s false that it’s true that it’s false].

Does this mean that he bases his foundation of the Cartesian method of doubt on a something that is not true (the thought that it is true that everything is false, or the thought that it is not true because it is false because everything is false) – then by his own logic because his foundation is built on something false, then his whole method of doubt is also then untrue! But that in itself is a truth.

So if it’s true that it’s false then it’s false that it’s true, which means it’s false that it’s false, which makes it true?

Do you see why people say I give them a headache all the time?

But seriously, isn’t there something self-referentially incoherent about the Cartesian Method of Doubt.

I know in the end Rene believes there is but one thing that is true “Cogito Ergo Sum” – however, how can he know that it’s true, if he starts with the idea that everything is false (which is itself an incoherent statement as it is self-contradictory), and therefore then disqualifies his own argument against his own argument.