 As each passage conveys, the doubt is directed not at the particular object level propositions undermined, but at the possibility of our having a defective cognitive nature. (In this vein, Carriero helpfully refers to the doubt under the heading, ‘imperfect-nature doubt’ (2009, 27), rather than Evil Genius Doubt.) As each passage also conveys, the doubt effectively undermines even the “most evident” of matters. Because the doubt is indirect, it’s blind to the particular propositions it undercuts. The relevant question does arguably shift from, “How could a doubt undermine the cogito?”, to “How could this doubt fail to undermine even the cogito?” Indeed, the first of the above passages expressly includes the cogito with the list of example propositions being indirectly called into doubt – this, in the pivotal fourth paragraph of the Third Meditation: