If a tree is a tree because a tree is a tree, and a car is a car because a car is a car, then a tree is a tree and a car is a car. But, if a tree is a tree because a car is a car, and a car is a car because a tree is a tree, then a tree is not a tree and car is not a car.
I don’t understand this. What does it mean? Why would a tree be a tree because a car is a car?
Maybe I could understand if a tree was a tree because a different tree was a tree. But then, the conclusion would not be that it is not a tree. The conclusion would be that it should not be a tree.
Even so, I am I means nothing because while I can imagine a car acting like a tree, “car” and “tree” are both objects which something can become, however, “I” is a word which is used by a person to refer to himself- “I am I” is completely redundant.
All kidding aside, does this line actually mean anything?