The same would be true of philosophical hypertext. Though not a linear argument, this process demands links that do multiple duty and should be traversed from a beginning. For the reader to intercept only a part of this movement would be to see as independent something that is not. To leave the first links behind would be to miss an aspect of the larger unit. To lose the movement in a cloud of links would be to diffuse the investigation into comments that presuppose too much independence in the individual moments of the discourse.
Philosophy discusses alternative first principles and disputes definitions and modes of argument.
The argumentative line is surrounded by a fluid discourse in which there are no fixed primacies and no firm meta-levels, because it is in that discourse that such dependencies get established. The fluid discourse gives argument its bearings. Hypertext seems to be a medium in which this fluid discourse would flourish. This could both stem from and result in intellectual laziness. It could also cater to an uncritical audience that wanted to be titillated by the passage of ideas, but not to be challenged in its beliefs or values.