The idea “a true tree of life” in terms of “species” is paradoxically contradictory

The idea “a true tree of life” in terms of “species” is inconsistent, actually paradoxically contradictory, by resting of the fundamental assumption that kinds are real (as Russell’s paradox demonstrates).

It means that “a true tree of life” actually is a paradox, ie, a paradoxical contradiction, like whether the barber in the barber’s paradox shaves himself or not – if he does, then he doesn’t, and if he doesn’t, then he does. The idea tilt between two contradictory states.

“A true tree of life” is thus not something that can be found, but just a mental construct, like “God(s)” and “Higgs particle”. None of them can exist in this world, because nothing can both be and not be at the same time. If something could, then this thing would transgress the boundary between reality and dream, and thus also the boundary between is and was, meaning that it would wipe out the difference that the distinction of itself rests on, and thus also itself. It would thus eradicate itself in the moment it comes into existence.

This is the world of contradictions like “a true tree of life”, “God(s)” and “Higgs particle” – an impossibility. They are interesting ideas, but impossible. If rational people do not agree on this, then rationality itself is endangered.

This does not mean that the idea of the biological diversity having originated by evolution is inconsistent, but just that describing this process with “a true tree of life” is. The problem for rationalists is thus to find a rational (consistent) model for this process. The fundamental problem for this search is, however, that it, itself, is exposed to the process of evolution.


2 responses to “The idea “a true tree of life” in terms of “species” is paradoxically contradictory

  1. There is a true tree of life, surely? I get it that the way in which we divide and name is arbitrary, but there is an actual fact of the matter: there is a phylogeny which actually happened, even if we do not have accurate epistemic access. How can you think there is not a true tree of life? Do you think there is a true tree of your own genealogy going back to, say, your great grandparents? Surely you do. The true tree of life is just this, taken back to the common ancestor all living things share. What’s illogical about this? Can you spell it out?

    • I just did. But, I can explain it again by that there isn’t any “true tree of life” simply because there isn’t anything that can have a “true tree of life”. The problem isn’t the tree in itself, but the “species”. There actually can’t be anything (ie, any kind of things, like “species”) that can have a “true tree”, because there aren’t any kinds. Kinds are nothing but our own invention, which Russell’s paradox clearly demonstrates if we don’t understand it. Instead, belief in a “true tree of life” is the same phenomenon as belief in God(s) (and Higgs particle). Never will any of them be found, because they exist only our heads.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s