An Argument can be deep in two different, not-entirely-compatible ways.
This extends the discussion in Joint Coherence.
In the Argument is a Container metaphor, the idea of depth relates to solidity and centrality: *the core of the argument* is the deepest/furthest from the the surface of the Container.
In the Argument is a Building metaphor, depth means that which is *foundational*, that provides *support* for the rest of the argument. Pretty close to the Container meaning.
But in the Argument is a Journey metaphor, depth means "not obvious."
> Facts that are not on the surface are hidden from immediate view; we need to go into them in depth. (p. 101)
* The next chapter will *explore* some surprising ramifications. * We hit *pay dirt*! * Each successive chapter will explore the argument in *greater depth*.
Notice that the Understanding is Seeing metaphor is implicated here:
* Having *come this far*, we can now *see* that Hegel's *foundations* are *shakier* than he admits.
And the More is Better metaphor comes into play:
* That's *not much* of an argument. * A 50-minute podcast, and that's *all* you *covered*?
But Joint Incoherence is still possible.