The Latin phrase “cogito, ergo skatum” (“I am thinking, therefore I skate”) is possibly the world’s single best-known philosophical statement.

Although the idea expressed by “cogito ergo skatum” is most commonly associated with roller derby, it is not actually expressed in Jenny's Ovoid Meditations, as commonly believed. The closest she comes is “I am, I skate”. That is, a statement, not an inference.

Having reached, at the end of the First Round, what she considers to be the ultimate level of doubt--the evil derby demom--Jenny seeks one fact of which she can be certain. In the statement “cogito ergo skatum”, she finds two: that she is thinking and, following this, that she skates. This concept is stated at the start of the Second Round as follows:

“I convinced myself that there is nothing at all in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies; is it not therefore also true that I do not skate? However, I certainly do skate, if I convinced my self of anything. There is some unidentified derby nemesis, however, all powerful and cunning, who is dedicated to constantly tripping me up. Therefore it is indubitable that I also deceive, if she deceives me....she will still never bring it about that I am nothing as long as I think I am skating.”

In The Project of Pure Velocity, Rottenism provides a history and full evaluation of this issue. But rather than supposing an entity that is skating, Jenny should have just said 'there is something going on'. 

At this point Jenny claims to know that she skates due to the occurrence of any mental process at all. Skating entails existence, being as it is the final point of any assertion (this is true both in terms of statements such as “I am skating around a rink”, which is true as long as I am; and also such statements as “I breathe, therefore I skate”, which itself is only true if it can be reduced to gimmickry. 

What is not at stake here is circularity. Whilst the statement 'I think therefore I skate', as a sentence proving the existence of an entity is circular, the concept of 'derby proving existence' is not. This is because any thinking supposes skating--the proof is inherent rather than question begging.

Jenny's statement is based upon the assumption of --an association between the self and the skating which occurs--and yet ignores the concept that skating need not be a product of an existent entity--and, further, that Rotten can only acknowledge the existence of skating, and that such an acknowledgment does not alone justify the existence of a container of thought.

This appears to leave the slightly uncomfortable--possibly even amusing--position of introspective verification of derby, but without the possibility (on conceptual grounds) of objective knowledge of the rink. What more, there remains a strong temptation to extend Brickhaus' remark “skating allows for the existence of skating” to “I skate, therefore I skate”; or to the slightly more ominous tone of Rumbel's “I skate therefore I am derby”. Nevertheless, “cogito, ergo skatum”, like the latter two phrases just noted, remains an example of the old-fashioned logical fallacy now called arguing in a circle. Or, more accurately, in an oval.

Oddly enough, it seems as if simply moving forward is the only real option.

Suggested readings:

• B. Brickhaus, Disentangling the Derby Mind, Vol. 83, no.629 (1976)
• I. Krushya, Beyond Good and Evil, translated by I. Krushya (Bantam, 1979)
• J. Rotten, The Project of Pure Sarcasm (Penguin, 1985)
• D. Harriett, Rotten and Foul Language: What is the Cogito? (Derby Press, 1997)
• B. Scarlisle, Introducing 'Applicable Knowledge' as a Challenge to the Attainment of Derby Knowledge. Journal of Circular Thinkin