The difference in biological systematics between cladistics and Linnean taxonomy is extremely interesting in that it reveals that it is impossible to understand what reality is.
The difference between them is fundamentally whether one believes that there is a single consistent classification or not – cladists believing that there is and Linnean systematicians believing (or in the best case understanding) that there is not.
So, how does this difference reveal that it is impossible to understand what reality is? Well, the belief that there is a single consistent classification (ie, cladistics) leads to inconsistency (ie, paradoxical contradiction), whereas the belief (or in the best case understanding) that there is not (ie, Linnean taxonomy) leads to just consistent classifications. The fundamental problem is that there are many consistent classifications, and that the belief in a single consistent classification thus misses the goal, whereas the disbelief in this hits all possible such goals. There are indeed consistent classifications, but not a single consistent classification. This fact reveals that it is impossible to understand what reality is by that every understanding of what reality is has to be framed in words, which classify. The impossibility to reach a single consistent classification thus reveals that it is also impossible to reach a single consistent understanding of what reality is. It reveals that the best we can produce is many consistent understandings of what reality is, actually uncountably infinite many.
The difference between cladistics and Linnean Systematics thus tells us that reality is intangible.