The article can also be seen as a proto-structuralist argument. If you take this argument a bit further,you could say that trees do not exist. Could you point m

The article can also be seen as a proto-structuralist argument. If you take this argument a bit further,you could say that trees do not exist. Could you point me out the defining characteristic of a tree? A structuralist would ask. Is it because it is big? But what of bonzais? Or banana trees? Can't we just name trees bushes? Etc. It's an interesting way of looking at things but it will not teach you a lot. It just shows you that definitions are relative, not absolute.