Cladistics can create a belief in an infinite loop, but not a solution to it

If classes indeed are real, as cladists assume as an axiom, and they have originated according to Darwin’s illustration, then clades are indeed the “only natural groups” (of classes).

However, the fact that classification is ultimately contradictory (see Russell’s paradox) means that classes can’t be real (contrary to what cladists assume as an axiom). It means that classes neither can have originated (neither according to Darwin’s illustration nor according to any other illustration) nor are the “only natural groups” (of classes).

The cladistic question: which are the only natural groups? and its answer: clades are the only natural groups, does thus fundamentally beg for an answer to the question: what are classes (which cladists thus assume are real as an axiom)? The answer is that classes are fundamentally a tool we use to discuss reality. They come in two flavors: infinite classes and finite classes, whereof infinite classes are types (or ideas), traditionally just called classes, and finite classes are collections of real entities we assign to specific infinite classes, traditionally called categories. For example, if an infinite class is my perception of a forest, then the finite class of this kind is the specific instances in reality that I assign to this infinite class, that is, the real areas I categorize as forest. The difference between them is the difference between my idea of a forest and what I actually categorize as a forest. Classes is thus a tool that is divided between infinite classes and finite classes.

The cladistic question: which are the only natural groups? thus begs the question: of what? However, the fact that classes (ie, what) comes in two flavors means that that this question can have an unambiguous answer only if classes are not contradictory, which they thus (see Russell’s paradox) obviously are. The question: of what? thus, obviously, lacks an unambiguous answer. There obviously are no “whats” that such “natural groups” can consist of.

The problem for cladistics is thus that there is nothing that its “natural groups” can consist of. This fact can it, of course, turn up-side-down, and then start searching for “natural groups” of classes, but it can’t change the fact that this search is a search for an infinite recursion (infinite loop). It can thus lead you into a search for a solution of an infinite loop, but it can’t create a solution to it. Your choice is thus to either join the posse for an infinite recursion (ie, cladistics) or understand it.

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/

Read more at Menvall’s Blog: change on different levels