difference between flowers and paper. If he did not know the difference, he would not be able to detect the illusion and he would go on being deceived. Bouwsma also states that it is critical that the genius also understand the difference between his illusion and reality even if Tom does not.Bouwsma offer a sound and reasonable arguments, but he isn’t able to completely defeat skepticism. His argument was damaging to Descartes, but not destructive to the whole of skepticism. For example, Bouwsma makes an excellent case against the evil genius argument by suggesting that what the genius would consider illusion, people would consider reality. But it must be noted that while Bouwsma has made a valid suggestion, it does not prove that the evil genius does not exist. It is as impossible to prove that the evil genius doesn’t exist, as it is to prove that God does exist.No one can prove or disprove the existence of an evil genius; they can only go so far as to say that it does not matter. He tried to prove that the existence of the evil genius would not make a difference in our lives. For this reason, I believe that although Bouwsma has made a valid point, but he only touched the surface of Descartes' argument. He has succeeded in proving that life is not meaningless, but that was not the purpose of Descartes' argument to begin with. All in all the two philosophers both have valid points to back there individual arguments but it is a matter of opinion on which one is right....
