Cladists argue that among all possible trees of life, one must be “the true” tree of life. The problem with this argument is, however, not whether it is true or not, but rather what cladists mean that the tree consists of (ie, a tree of what)?
If we examine the expression “tree of life”, we can understand that “tree” (actually “tree graph”) is a class (like, for example “bear”) consisting of unique individual tree graphs (like bears), and that “life” is a class consisting of unique individual (living) organisms, and can thus understand that a tree of life actually is a class of classes (ie, a class consisting of all classes of individual (living) organisms) per definition. It leads us to an understanding that the class cladists refer to, ie, “tree of life”, implies that there are more than one class of classes, whereof they thus argue that one must be the true class of classes, which we then can understand is a contradiction. If “class” is a class (which is true per definition), then each class in this class is a class, but all of them can’t also be a class, since it would mean that the classes in this class are ambiguous, because it would mean that they aren’t unambiguous, that is, that there isn’t any unambiguous class of classes. We can thus understand that the cladistic argument is self-contradictory.
Cladists argue that the true tree of life consists of “species”, but “species” is a paradoxical contradiction in every interpretation except Linne’s. Without genera, “species” decay into into a paradoxical contradiction (ie, the cladistic), since if they are real, then there isn’t any consistent partitioning of them. They are thus not real if they are real and real if they are not real. We can thus understand that the cladistic argument that “among all possible trees of life, one must be “the true” tree of life” rests on an inconsistent conceptualization of reality assuming that “species” are real. Unfortunately, fact is that there isn’t any true tree of life simply because there aren’t any species.