In astronomy there's a semantics argument that there's no such thing as moonlight or that it's ontologically just sunlight. Indeed such an idea is semantic because for one it ignores the phenomenology of everything. But even categorically it is not correct in my opinion. Anatomically! For though the light is "merely reflecting" light from the sun this is not to say that the lunar midwife is not the bottommost substance behind the phenomenon which illumines the earth. Each particle of light is derived from its transformation upon infusing with the moon. Were it brought to bear on a different object in orbit around earth then that light would produce a new phenomenon a part of nature. Pluto light also derives from the sun's rays but within reflection there is something doing a reflecting and thus a reincarnating of the original substance which is the sunlight. Visible light is a particular substance which interacts with another substance within the space continuum. The result is a dual substance because without this second substance the light would dissipate in empty space.
Even the image of the moon brought to life through the sunlight is itself the particularity of 'moonlight.' The image and the light are one and the same.
