eye to eye and laugh or cry?

trees. how can trees be described? by there appearance? sure. they are tall, beautiful, colorful. or, should they be described by their purpose? a tree can provide shelter and food for living things, can support the ecosystem, can be crafted into wood. how about if we describe them by their character? steadfast, sturdy, reliable. by their stereotype? by their position? by their type?
i could continue, but i think you may understand my point (or perhaps not). my point is there are many ways of describing and characterizing things. which one is the right way? is there a right way? or does is simply depend on what aspect one is trying to describe? is there a wrong way? a right way? an only way?
if i want to describe a tree by its character or appearance, but all others wish to do is look at what it contributes and why it is there, is either opinion correct or incorrect? ultimately, it is one's choice how one would like to view something. no one else can tell another they are wrong in what they are observing, if they have in fact taken the time to observe. simply because i want to say a tree is unique and beautiful, doesn't make it false, but, another may still wish to say the tree can be made into wood and that is all it's good for. just as i wouldn't be wrong, neither is the other observation. even if i know that is not all a tree is good for, even if i tell them that trees are steadfast and beautiful, that doesn't mean they have to accept that fact. i could even bring them into the middle of a forest to show them the grandest of trees and they still might not change their view. like it or not, everyone has a position of their own.
i guess that is the beauty and regret of variety.