The vicious point in a PhD is this constant need for an argument: in order to argue you need to know what you want to defend. In order to defend you need to know who are your opponents and why they are wrong (or not right enough). So you are always “defending” yourself by asserting your position as true.
To start with: this is not me. I rarely feel that I am the only one to be true. I search for options…
The argument methodology also assumes that you know what you want to defend. This is quite tricky, as most of my life as a PhD student is spent in learning and making connections between things… but not really knowing where I want to go.
Trap n.2: I think I need to know in order to have an argument. “Knowing” is a limitless activity: you never get to the feeling of knowing. But in order to write for the PhD I need to know what I want to defend… so I am back to square one.
This leads me to the question: can I admit that I do not know? Can I admit that I am more interested in the process itself than in the result?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 15th, 2008