On the choice between Linnean systematics and cladistics

When we conceptualize reality, we implicitly distinguish reality from our conceptualization of it. This distinction is thus not a real difference, but an arbitrary (artificial) distinction in a continuity consisting of reality and our distinction of it. This distinction creates an orthogonal (ie, diametrically opposed) relation between reality and our conceptualization of it, which, in turn, leaves us with two orthogonal approaches to conceptualize reality: subjectivity and objectivity. These two approaches are thus the only two facets (or aspects) of the thus created interface between us and reality that it offers us to look at (and thus conceptualize) reality.

The fact that the relation between reality and our conceptualiztion thus is orthogonal means, however, that neither of the offered approaches (ie, subjectivity and objectivity) can be unambiguous, since an orthogonal relation can't be unambiguous, but that one is paradoxically contradictory (ie, subjectivity), see also Russell's paradox, whereas the other is consistently ambiguous (ie, objectivity). Our choice in conceptualization of reality is thus between being paradoxically contradictory or consistently ambiguous. Subjectivity is also called realism, ie, assuming that classes are real, whereas objectivity also is called nominalism, ie, assuming that objects are real.

These two approaches (ie, realism and nominalism) have been battling each other since the dawn of conceptualization. The fundamental disagreement between them is which of them that can reach the ultimate truth that both of them search. This battle is thus a battle of the Pope's beard, since none of them can reach the ultimate truth, because the ultimate truth can't be reached at all, since none of the to us offered facets (or aspects) of reality is unambiguous. None of these two approaches can thus reach an ultimate truth, since one of them is paradoxically contradictory (ie, subjectivity) whereas the other is consistently ambiguous (ie, objectivity). Instead, we have to choose one of them by its pros and cons. We have to abandon the idea of a single "true" conceptualization and instead evaluate them by their respective pros and cons. The question we have to pose ourselves is thus: do we prefer to enter a vain search for a non-existing "True Tree of Life" (ie, cladistics) or produce a consistent classification (ie, an orthogonal system of classification like the Linnean system)? There is no other option given to us.

Another question is whether the sponsors of biological systematics prefer to pay for a vain search for a non-existing "True Tree of Life" or for the production of a consistent classification. This is a choice they have to contemplate.