Moore restated Hume's guillotine as the naturalistic fallacy. That was actually the main basis of most discussion of ethics in the logical schools of the 20th century.

lol. I really should finish copy editing that.

Due to others asking to read this, its now posted on my blog. the only real difference is a quote from mein kampf as substantiation.

http://www.yofiel.com/writing/essays/dialog

Yeah it is ridiculous isnt it.

Today Al Gore appeared on PBS calling for 'reason.' I posted this. I expect no result any more. It's kind of like a chicken with its head cut off still running around.

-----

While Mr. Gore may be admired for his optimism, this problem won't be 'solved by the Internet,' because the new proposed tools to isolate 'fake news' don't stop social media making the problem worse again. While I doubt others will have much to say on it, I publish it here in the hope that Mr. Gore himself consider the problem, there being very few others of real importance embarked on the same admirable course he has chosen.

I also have been following this trend for the last ten years, and when I first predicted that Tea Party ethics would take over the government, academics scoffed at me. Last year they were no longer scoffing. So I will explain what I have observed.

For a while, the Internet was a fantastic innovation, as people with particular obscure interests could find each other, in ways previously impossible. But other corollary assemblages formed. People with *any* particular view could find others to validate it, regardless of the view's actual sensibility. People easily found reinforcement for hostile, violent, socially unacceptable views, which would rapidly have been terminated in real-world scenarios, but which built in impetus, safe in anonymity, until the group reached critical mass. Then they organized to gather at some rally, when previously they would not have been able to find each other. Political parties figured this out and now frequently refer to it as 'new grass roots organization on the Internet.' These very powerful political groups are loosely associated, and the formal components can claim detachment from the more aggressive elements, but in tandem they form an increasingly unstoppable force. Now they will simply hijack any tools to filter out fake news and bend them to their agenda.

Also, I should add, these new tools to filter out fake news are not new ideas. I for one started asking for them 5 years ago. They are now too late. The agenda of those wishing to control public opinion in this way has since continued to grow in power, the power groups are now established, they have no ethics, and they have no hesitation in inciting corruption for their own power, which they then deny on their own fake news systems.

In concert, they remain immune to any fact or rationality contrary to their position, because they have gathered many believing the same falsity. They then mutually reject any authority or academic qualification over their own opinion, and they are not even open to discussing it. They simply ban or ridicule anything different to their agenda, and support each other in doing so.

The aggregate of these micro communities creates hostile dichotomies through the midst of society, across which each side does nothing but attack and blame the other side, no matter how inconsistent or directly wrong each side's view is on any one particular point, because, the discrepancies in rationality don't even matter. There is no real interest any more in understanding what MIGHT be true, and what that would mean; instead there is only a continually mounting pressure to say that everyone outside one's own camp is wrong, accelerating into some future mutual assured destruction.

I would be open to discussing solutions, but just as 10 years ago, there are still insufficient people taking this problem seriously enough, even though it is now graced with the popular moniker as a new 'post-truth ' era In the general and massively increased noise of scoffing and denial, it is no longer so easy to find people with the same concerns as it used to be, if the concerns are not the ones which everyone else considers most important. So it now appears to me, the schisms and lack of concern for reason are permanent, at least for my own life. It seems to me there is no existent force to change it, unless people take this problem seriously enough and take real steps to correct it throughout society, starting with our education system.

Good point jkop. The fact is people can easily find find reinforcement for hostile, violent, socially unacceptable views now, which would rapidly have been terminated in real-world scenarios, but which now can build impetus in anonymity until the group reaches critical mass. During the process, they create their own interpretation of world events which is published as 'fake news,' then they rapidly share it as propaganda to substantiation for their opinions. After that, they can organize to gather at some rally, when previously they would not have been able to find each other. Political parties have figured this out and now refer to it as 'new grass roots organization on the Internet.' The KKK would be a better historical analogy.

the problem with atomism is discussed in another thread on theseus' ship.

I beleive what is happening now is different than in the past because of social media. Now people with any particular view can find others to validate it regardless of its sensibility. They remain immune to any fact or rationality contrary to their position because they can find many others believing the same falsity. They then mutually reject any authority or academic qualification over their own opinion, and as I state, are not even open to discussing it. They simply ban or ridicule anything different to their agenda.

The aggregate of these micro communities create hostile dichotomies in society which do nothing but attack and blame the other side no matter how inconsistent each side's view is, because as I say, the discrepancies in rationality dont matter any more.

my dad is 92. He gave up on making a difference quite a long time ago. I was a hold out. He does enjoy the subject though.

thank you for the compliment about my website. I dont like modern design, it looks to me like just another post-truth simplification.

I think the problem is far deeper actually. Today, someone told me that terrorism had been going on for hundreds of years, citing Vietnam as proof. 'Terrorism' USED TO MEAN a soldier dressing up as a civilian and sneaking into a civilian place to kill people. Now it means whatever the hell you want.

People now use words to describe whatever they decide they mean, accepting no authority over their own opinion. It has got so bad, it is impossible to communicate any more, and yesterday I terminated my philosophy blog. It has got that bad.

"It is beyond the capacity of any person such as me to rectify the problem, as I had so much once hoped when I started writing on natural law two years ago. For no matter how relevant the truths might be to each and every person in this self-infatuated nation, they also display no interest whatsoever in learning better, just like the far more ignorant terrorists they so despise, yet for whom no better knowledge is even possible. The result is no real democracy at all, with misunderstood natural rights in deceptive name alone. Instead there is an imperial oligarchy in war with its own culture and incapable of recognizing it, where most are innocent, and far too many die for it, all for immaterial justifications. And with that I draw the curtain closed on two years of endeavor. "
http://www.yofiel.com/social-contract/terrorism

Well thank you. I must say the ONLY people who seem to appreciate this are the Stoics. But not all of them. I added references, quotes, pictures, and additional information in response to other comments from Stoics, and altogether the final result of my last two years work is here.

http://www.yofiel.com/social-contract/terrorism

For reasons stated, I dont believe there is any point in me writing anything else.

Well it appears you know a great deal more than most. The problem as I see it as follows. Augustine not only denied the golden age (as originally stated by Hesiod) as the basis of natural law, but also substituted a personally based divine law of salvation, coupled with a total denial of any secular authority as meaningful by comparison in justice (emphasis on meaningful), That might have been OK by itself, but he then went further to say that the affairs of men are even a distraction from personal salvation and a danger to the faith.

This was extremely popular, and there was really no rational idea of justice at all during the subsequent collapse of the roman empire, after Augustinian ideas had taken total hold. Most texts were destroyed as blasphemous unless they either contained evidence of how right Augustine was and how wrong the people he condemned were--or had some bearing on the life of Christ as approved by the third Nicene council (other unapproved texts were heretical, and also destroyed). For example, Cicero only survived more than most because the early Christians were confident that Augustine had totally debunked him.

Since then it has been very difficult to disentangle the original ideas of natural law from the divine, from two fronts. First, there are still those who insist that God alone controls what is right and wrong, and they will not tolerate secular ideas of ethics independent from their own. Second, there are the militant atheists seeking to remove any form of divine imagination from the world altogether, with equal force of fanaticism. Both sides seem to me ethically immature. For a society to function, the principles of ethics hold that there should be some acceptance of both sides derivation of the ideas, and as long as the final conclusion is consistent, they should be able to coexist. But that is not what happens. What one instead observes as a continuous and rather banal bickering. All the effort is to disprove the other, and none to refine and expand common ground. This problem is in fact now rife almost to the point of civil war throughout American culture, and exemplified with the total inability of the USA to understand Islam at all. As such, we seem to be repeating the same error that led to the Dark Ages, albeit on a different basis.

Thank you for making a nice forum, and I will save some money for you.

Ah, well that is what the next 60,000 words will explain. I am so glad you are interested.

'The truth' is a rather dubious concept. I merely state that law must be based on the human condition. the reason for that statement is simple. if law is not based on the human condition, a Hobbesian state of war is inevitable. That is the logic of it. It is to do with law. it is not to do with morality or reasons of existence. I won't engage in arguments whether a state of war is undesirable or not, that is simply childish. No more to say on it.

Yes, I am aware you think that, and I will look forward to discussing it further with you after you grow up.

i again have to point out that I am not particularly concerned with distinctions of secular and divine law. It seems I cant say that often enough. I merely state that law must be based on the human condition. Maybe this is some kind of genuinely original thought now, although I cant imagine how that could be really possible given how many thousands of years the topic has been discussed.

It's tru that Justinian did influence later thought, but it wasnt because people thought, ahah, Justinian had a point. By that time, Aquinas had already restated the views of Averroes and other Islamic philosophers in Christian terms, which then made Justinian's ideas acceptable again.

So now, it occurs to me that there isa real reason why Justinian's codices disappeared, and it really was too much rationality for the world to bear. When one bases a legal system on such a simple premise, it leads to deductions which are rather obvious, but contrary to that which many people want. Subsequent rulers did not want their edicts so confined by anything so mundane as simple rationality. So the codices conveniently vanished. And the condition persists.

Consider for example, the first statement regarding natural law in Justinian: that marriage is part of natural law because it is how we raise children. In the modern world, this would have two implications.

First, there is the frequently cited case of two people of the same sex falling in love and wanting to raise children together. By all precepts of reason, if they are raising adopted children together, they are married, and the sex of the partners is not really important.

Second, the real reason for the confusion regarding marriage is even more mundane: taxes. People want to claim tax deductions because they are married. By any rationality, the tax deductions should only occur if the wife is pregnant or the couple is raising children. That is the logical consequence of basing law on the actual human condition, rather than some abstracted morality or concept of emotional bond. But that now has sadly become almost impossible to change in the modern world, and we are stuck with mistakes of prior generations. Philosophically, historical precedence creates what is now called 'legislative law,' and it is nothing new. It was referred to as 'laws of customs' or 'laws of traditions' in Justinian's time, a distinction first spelled out in Cicero.

Conflicts between tradition and rationality persist to the current day, even in constitutional law. When the founding fathers wrote the bill of rights, there was much fear of slave rebellion, so one of the rights was for all citizens to bear arms. It was reasoned that this was a necessary protection of freedom. In the current world, this '2nd amendment' right to bear muskets against slave rebellion has resulted in massive profits for the gun manufacturing industry. It lobbies the USA government with the most horrific distortions of fact to justify the continued sale of modern weapons, of the most lethal kind they can attain, even to people who are mentally ill. The historical problem is that it is very difficult to remove a freedom, pragmatically, once it has been granted to the public, no matter how ridiculous the situation was that led to the freedom being granted has now become.

that is a very thoughtful ansewr thank you. You are not the only to say it today, so I have not written clearly enough on the point I was trying to make that Justinian's was the first formal SYSTEM based on natural law. While the 12 tables were an admirable achievement in mostly barbaric times, they were simply a list of rules, and not a SYSTEM.

Then you actually repeat exactly the misconception I was trying to address, ironically. I didnt say the laws are divine edict. I simply said they must be based on the human condition. Also, when I state the Jeffersonian contract is theistic, I get similar complaints. I started to realize this is rather a major misconstrual in the current world, so I wrote this preface, and apparently it is still not long enough.

quite a lot of people say that. So I assume you already know the standard answers. It's not as if you have any particularly unusual misconceptions that you go on about at great length.

GLOBAL WARMING: Finding the Missing Heat ~ The real problem for those wishing to ignore the effect of human beings on the climate is the greenhouse effect. One can make any number of arguments that other factors will cause the climate to change, up to and including new ice ages and sunspots. But the fact is, the greenhouse effect is not only more significant than most such postulations, but totally predictable, as it can be modeled in the laboratory and extrapolated with fair accuracy to the entire planet. The problem has been for scientists is that planetary temperature models are partially based on ocean temperature. In fact as water covers most the planet, ocean temperature is extremely important. But the data is extremely sparse. Most of the data is surface temperature. Deep-water sensors are extremely rare. But initially scientists did not believe that was so significant, because they thought warm water rises, so heat would not be stored deeper down.

Then the early extrapolations predicted a greater increase in global temperature than was occurring. That is to say, we may be certain to a very high degree of accuracy how much heat there SHOULD be captured on the planet by greenhouse gases. We have very accurate data of how much greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere. But we don't know exactly where the heat is going that the gases capture.

Those with fiscal interest in denying climate change immediately trumpeted that scientists were deliberately misleading the public, somewhat to the confusion of scientists who have no motivation to do so.

In 2015, the general consensus was that the largest hole in the dataset was the effect of the icemelt from the Himalayas into the Indian Ocean. Recent spot surveys have indicated that deep-sea undercurrents from the Himalayan icemelt carry warm water deeper than originally thought, and that slipstreams of warmer and colder water form layers in the deep sea which are capturing heat way down below. So last year, an international consortium started deploying a network of about 60 'bouncing weatherbuoys' was distributed across the Indian ocean. The 'bouncing weatherbuoys' move very sensitive temperature and current sensors up and down the buoy cables to gather data across the entire ocean depth. This will increase the amount of data by something like five orders of magnitude, which was calculated to be the amount necessary to determine how much the deep sea is actually absorbing heat across the different slipstream layers, and how the heat is being distributed out of the Indian ocean into the pacific. That only serves to indicate how little data has been available on deep ocean currents. It will take at least several years for the first recomputations to be available, and so there hasnt been alot of news about it yet on the open Internet, because the scientists, from prior experience in this field, have no interest in promising any findings which might be more difficult to establish than they hope.

The general observation should be, if people really wish to challenge the scientific theory, they should be funding such experiments more, rather than withdrawing the funding for military purposes, as is currently happening in the USA. Nothing would delight the scientists more than to discover they are wrong about impending doom. Meanwhile, the search continues for the missing heat, as much as it can, while those who deny the inevitable consequences of the greenhouse effect ratchet up the rhetoric to claim that the second law of thermodynamics is pseudoscience created by fakes, by which same logic, car engines would not work. And that's the world as it is known today )

Well China is not really communist now. It is a one-party political system where the dominant party is communist. That may seem absurd to the Western mind, but it makes sense to them. They would point out that a two-party system is worse, as it only creates unproductive bipartisan conflict; a 3-party system doesn't fix it, as the third party detracts from minority power; so the only alternative which would be more democratic is a four-party system, which, historically, has been shown to be unworkable. Thus their way makes sense to them.

One should consider, in their one-party system, a citizen has far better representation than in the USA. The top-level voting party was an incredible delegation of 7,000 in Beijing. Each of those 7,000 represent the local jurisdictions. In the local jurisdictions, the total number of party members has been impossible to know until recently, as the benefits of computers and the information age have finally started to reach into the slowly more wealthy proletariat. The Communist Party gained 1.1 million members in 2014, taking the ruling organization's membership to almost 88 million, a figure greater than the population of Germany. According to party communiques, 2014 party membership continued a rising trend of 1.3%t year-on-year. With China's 2015 population reported as '1,376,048,943,' That means 1 in 15 are a member of the party, and each has voting rights in party decisions. This compares with, for example, the State of California, where each assembly member represents 485,000 Californian citizens.

Moreover, in China, national representation is even more superior. Each national delegate in China represents ~12,500 party members and ~200,000 Chinese citizens. By comparison, each congressman in Washington DC represents ~760,000 Americans. Furthermore, every member of the Chinese Communist party has equal voting rights.

This all leads to the following rather surprising conclusion.China's government may have been something we used to deride as obviously inferior, but it has evolved to provide far better democratic representation than the USA, and meanwhile, the USA government is still protecting the rights of citizens to bear muskets against the threat of slave rebellion. So the tables have turned.

So anyway, what I did today was finalize the first paragraph of the book, which as you request, ends with a question.

To understand law, we must start with the first principles of law: we are mortal, we require food and water, we require families, and we require shelter for ourselves and our families. Those are the laws of nature which define the human condition. We cannot escape the human condition. No human can change those facts through our own faculty of reason alone. They are the necessary preconditions on which Hobbes defined the modern social contract, and the necessary preconditions of the Lockean social contract we currently enjoy. Unfortunately, when Thomas Aquinas first stated this some 10 centuries ago in the Western culture we know now, he called it 'divine law.' since then many have attempted to remove the divinity, and in the process, removed the precondition of natural law itself. Many have attempted to define morality and ethics via reason alone, as if we exist in some eternal, immortal state. Many have tried. All have failed.
Law cannot be considered in isolation from the human condition. Some consider the condition divine, and some object to that. In my opinion, the necessity of God's existence, or not, is rather a red herring that has persistently clouded the judgment of many much better minds for a millennium. As we have no choice in the human condition, It is a reasonable inference that we have equally no choice in our ability to reason that which is right and wrong. That is a state which Thomas Aquinas referred to as 'promulgation of the divine law' some 10 centuries ago. It remains a reasonable inference. One may disagree with the inference. One cannot disagree with the human condition.
The first formal statement promulgating 'human law' from 'natural law' was actually in the codices of Justinian, in the 6th century AD, which were themselves based on Cicero, which in turn was based on the Socratic social contract, recorded by Plato some 2400 years ago. Justinian created a division of philosophers and lawyers to create the first unified legal code. One of its most famous examples happens to be, bees.
If you keep a beehive, and a bee stings a neighbor, are you responsible? The answer is no. The bee is following the law of nature, and like uncaged birds, their flight is beyond human control. The laws of nature take precedence over all other law, bees are necessary for pollination, and so, a beekeeper is not responsible for others being stung by bees.
Perhaps this was too much sanity for the world to endure. During subsequent oppression of reason during the Dark Ages, the laws of Justinian were lost, and only eventually found again in the 16th century.
And even now, due to law cases about bee stings, I am not allowed to keep bees where I live now, and due to disease and blights, many bee species are going extinct--from which perspective, the rationality of humankind is in fact going backwards in more ways than the majority, who are not educated with the thoughts of Cicero and Justinian, are aware.
Is it actually possible to reverse the trend, and to place the learning of those who have struggled with such questions for three millennia now above the shoot-from-the-hip backlash of common-sense? Or has our respect for actual thought so far degraded that society is doomed to live forever in a world of 144-character insults taking place of wiser leadership?

Very well, I will not distract you from your egocentricism further.

I. I. I, I. I.

Please excuse the intrusion. Other matters will be more important.

I have to agree with apokrisis, and moreover, as :Locke said regarding his social contract:

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.

what we *mean* by *real color* is how a large uniformly, flat colored object appears in daylight. That is just a standardized reference by convention. It has very little to do with how we actually perceive color.

Now I will explain the point of this basis. All human law is contingent on the laws of nature. The famous example from Justinian happens to be, bees. If you keep a beehive, and a bee stings a neighbor, are you responsible? The answer is no. The bee is following the law of nature, and like uncaged birds, their flight is beyond human control. The laws of nature take precedence over all other law, bees are necessary for pollination, and so, a beekeeper is not responsible for others being stung by bees.

That is non-contingent purpose resulting in social relations based on the even older social contract defined by Socrates, and first transferred into legal terms by Cicero.

It's quite clear what the non-contingent purpose is. I just told you what it is. In fact it predates Aquinas. The first to state it as the basis of society in formal terms was the codices of Justinian, in the 6th century AD, which is where the word 'justice' came from.

It seems to me there is a muddling of two things. First, there is the reference to which 'Theseus' ship' points, if indeed reference is the mechanism of semantic association. Second, there is the larger issue of whether abstractions exist independent of the material world. Inevitably, in extended debate, the discussion falls to the latter underlying problem, even if the issue of which ship belongs to Theseus is trivially determinable.

You continue to make the mistake of assuming that you can deduce the answer from pure reason. If you wish to connect the concept of a social contract with social relations, you have to start with the first principles of law: we are mortal, we require food and water, we require families, and we require shelter for ourselves and our families. We cannot escape the human condition, no human can escape those facts through reason alone, and that is the divine law to which Aquinas refers. That is the necessary precondition on which Hobbes defined the modern social contract, and it is the necessary precondition of the Lockean social contract we currently enjoy.

It cannot be considered in isolation from the human condition. Some consider it divine, and some object to that. The necessity of God's existence, or not, is rather a red herring in my opinion, that has persistently clouded the judgment of many much better minds. It is a reasonable inference, as we have no choice in the human condition, that we have equally no choice in our ability to reason that which is right and wrong. That is a condition which has been referred to as promulgation of the divine law for some 10 centuries. One may disagree with the inference. One cannot disagree with the human condition.

what you are actually talking about is not the natural fallacy, it is what has been called, for some 900 years, 'promulgation.' This is commonly attributed to Aquinas in the West, although some Islamic scholars claim it has earlier origins in the work of Abu Mansur al-Maturidi in the 10th century.

Maturidi claimed that the human mind could know of the existence of God and the major forms of 'good' and 'evil' without the help of revelation. Al-Maturidi gives the example of stealing, which is known to be evil by reason alone due to man's working hard for his property. Killing, fornication, and drinking alcohol were all 'evils' the human mind could know of according to al-Maturidi.

Aquinas fit the idea into Western ideas of the time as follows: "Wherefore as the type of the Divine Wisdom, inasmuch as by It all things are created, has the character of art, exemplar or idea; so the type of Divine Wisdom, as moving all things to their due end, bears the character of law. Accordingly the eternal law is nothing else than the type of Divine Wisdom, as directing all actions and movements...so then no one can know the eternal law, as it is in itself, except the blessed who see God in His Essence. But every rational creature knows it in its reflection, greater or less. For every knowledge of truth is a kind of reflection and participation of the eternal law, which is the unchangeable truth. ( Summa Theologica, III.4,90-96, Venice, 1274).

To explain, this claims that rationality is a reflection of the divine law that is understood by us through reason independently, because, as the universe is ordered by divine law, we have the capacity of rationality to deduce the same principles of order without needing reference to divine law in order to create it. The point of this 13th century argument is to counter the belief that human beings are capable of reason without the pre-existence of the divine law of God. In fact, the argument goes, that is a delusion, and in fact, our concept of human law is a PROMULGATION from the divine. No naturalistic fallacy.

The first computer game I ever played was Ultima VII, which was in our test suite while developing the Pentium I at Intel. Since then I only really enjoyed similar games, the most recent being Skyrim.

It's a little old now, but with mods it's just as good visually as any other game now available, and it still has all the best of Ultima bits tucked into it. I tried Witcher 3 which was meant to be the newest and best last year, but didn't get past the first village, it was just a glorified arcade game in comparison. I don't think I will ever play another computer game again, Skyrim seems to have totally satiated me with the whole thing.

I listened for 10 minutes to hear him finally skip Plotinus, Proclus, and other such thinkers to go straight to Constantine, who any scholar would only consider a bizarre and grossly misrepresented heretic who manipulated Christian ideologies for personal benefit. It just happened to benefit Christianity too, but that was only a side product.

It's always been a bit of a shock to conventional Christians who have accepted the creed as taught when they eventually realize they are actually polytheists. People like this man are then very comforting to them. I don't think he has any deeper message.

The scientific methodology is only successful with honesty. Science is an empirical system where the results of many small experiments, each relying on the results of others, produces a synthetic model for reality. The benefits of science could not exist if the people conducting the experiments are not honest.

I had a very long debate with my cat about this. When the stray first started to live me, he would often come to say thank you after I fed him, purring happily. For a long time I cynically thought the cat was just figuring out ways to get fed. Eventually the cat won the debate, and now I think more of my cat's mind than many human's, but then I am biased, because I got to know my cat quite well. Why? A cat's life is pretty empty, between feedings, and my cat does better with it than many people I have known. I don't expect many other people to appreciate that, but my cat would appreciate me saying it.

You are making an assumption that such a thing as 'the drinking class' actually had any objective existence at all. I don't see why you need to be so insulting.

For basic scientific statements about various experiences and illusion related to color perception, see:for example:

http://www.archimedes-lab.org/color_optical_illusions.html

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54448/5-color-illusions-and-why-they-work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_constancy

http://www.stareclips.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideasthesia

I should add, it is amazing how much that is misunderstood even now.

Take Rothko, for example, who was an artist interested only in large swathes of color. He painted by candlelight. Art galleries now pay millions of dollars for his canvases and display them in bright incandescent light. I actually had an argument with the MOMA in NYC about it. It said basically, showing his canvases in candlelight was too weird for Americans to accept, and there would only be a demand to see it 'properly' in bright light instead. Which, given the other weird things MOMA displays, made it rather pointless continuing the debate, so I gave up. So now we cant even see the art Rothko actually painted at all. The name Rothko is now more important than the colors he wanted to show us. Just a thought why it is so misunderstood here now.

Thats exactly what I am saying. Red paint contains pigments which appear red in daylight. But in other lighting conditions, the red paint can appear to be orange, or purple, or brown, or gray. the strange thing is, two pigments can appear the same color in daylight, but different colors in different lighting conditions. That is what the great artists understood.

For a common object, such as a strawberry, we do not think of it being orange when it is lit such that it appears orange. We still think of it as red from our experience.

That is why color is more than just a combination of wavelengths.

Aristotle isnt really my specialty, I just understand the ancient Greeks better than most. Thank you for the thought.