To do hypertextual depends on the way you consider philosophy. David Kolb's one doesn't fit with ours...
Actually, conventional academic arguments are usually linearly structured, As David Kolb points out in "Socrates in the Labyrinth." But does that mean "linearly structured" ?
In his opinion, these conventions are based on argumentative premises which build on the premises that came before, all in a prescribed sequential order. According to Kolb, there is an "expository convenience" which does allow that "the parts of an argument may come in any order in the text, but the argument will be present only when the underlying linear, abstract structure is indicated in some manner" !
In looking at how arguments are often based on linearity, Kolb notes that "the conclusion is that philosophy's line cannot be dissolved in the way some have dreamed of dissolving the narrative line."
Conventional academic arguments do not seem to be open enough to admit to hypertextual ways of knowing, to hypertextual knowledge-making. If I abide by this "essentialist" definition of argument, my hypertext would fail before it had even started.
