I really thought that the part about pluralism was interesting. I think that it is important to look at the different parts of an object, such as the example with the oak tree. There is always something that makes us believe that what we are looking at is an oak tree, but if we look closer at what makes that particular oak tree special, we are able to explain our oak tree in a different light. Yes, I think that we could take it further, down to a small, molecular level, but I don't think that we always need to. Usually just looking under the surface is enough.
I was thinking about the functionalism's view, with thinking of something not as a thing, but a system. I think that it is similar in the way that you need to look at something as a whole, and not just part. In a team sport, you need to have players that work well together, not just good players on their own. People, and for that matter, objects can surprise you.