It may be because I'm a lousy philosopher, but I haven't discovered the problem with interpreting that phrase like a simpleton: it is certain that "something se

It may be because I'm a lousy philosopher, but I haven't discovered the problem with interpreting that phrase like a simpleton: it is certain that "something seems to be happening." This seems to be the only claim I can make that doesn't assume anything. Of course, for that to really be true, I shouldn't even try to formulate it in language (or thought) but then it's hard to communicate. I suppose the problem is that, without precision, it's impossible to know if we're talking about the same thing, and so we can't make progress. And yet the rest of his argument seems to make sense to me.