On the relation between cladistics and Linnean systematics

Cladistics and Linnean systematics are opposites. Both conceptualize reality using objects, classes and categories, but whereas cladistics assumes that categories (and thus also classes), like humans and cods, are real, ie, can be found, Linnean systematics instead assumes that objects, like you and me, are real, ie, can be found. Cladistics is thus subjective, whereas Linnean systematics is objective.

Both of them (ie, categories (and thus also classes) and objects) can't be real at the same time, since they are orthogonal, ie, diametrically opposed, and that it thus would mean that they would be synonymous, which they obviously aren't. Cladistics pretends that it acknowledges both categories and objects at the same time, but in practice it acknowledges categories (and thus also classes) instead of objects. Both of them can't be acknowledged at the same time, because they are orthogonal.

Cladistics and Linnean systematics thus represent the two possible entrances to conceptualization: (1) assuming that categories (and thus also classes) are real and (2) assuming that objects are real, respectively. The problem with cladistics is that it is contradictory between categories and classes (ie, finite classes and infinite classes), whereas the problem with Linnean systematics is that it is ambiguous in relation to reality. Neither is thus unambiguous in relation to reality. It means that we can't be unambiguous in relation to reality at all, since no entrance to conceptualization is unambiguous in relation to reality, but instead are constrained to discuss advantages and disadvantages of the two possible entrances to conceptualization.

The main advantage with objectivity (eg, Linnean systematics) is that it agrees with facts. Discussing reality using a conceptualization that does not agree with facts (like the cladistic concepts "clade" and "paraphyletic group") has to be  confused, since the concepts are contradictory. The concepts simply can't be defined non-contradictory. This main advantage with objectivity explains its success in the form of empirical science and modern IT applications as object oriented programming (eg, Geomatics). Objectivity is thus superior to subjectivity by agreeing with facts.

In spite of this strong advantage of objectivity, it has severe problems being accepted in biological systematics. Biological systematists obviously prefer conducting confused existential discussions to producing a standardized system of classification. It is just as if they can't abandon the naive idea that there is a single truth to be found; as if their own existence hangs on the existence of a single truth. In practice, however, it is the other way around.