Massive Fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Indeed. If Cathedrals couldn't be rebuilt Germany would have... significantly fewer.

Really. Thank goodness the Pyramids or Stonehenge hasn't burned. No one knows how to build those. *nodnod*

But stone doesn't burn... <.< You ought to know that. You're made out of marble.

[San Lumen]

Really. Thank goodness the Pyramids or Stonehenge hasn't burned. No one knows how to build those. *nodnod*

But stone doesn't burn... <.< You ought to know that. You're made out of marble.

but it can lose integrity

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

But stone doesn't burn... <.< You ought to know that. You're made out of marble.

but it can lose integrity

It was a joke... >.>

[Farnhamia]

Really. Thank goodness the Pyramids or Stonehenge hasn't burned. No one knows how to build those. *nodnod*

But stone doesn't burn... <.< You ought to know that. You're made out of marble.

Am not! I just look like it. You have to keep your skin moisturized.

[Bombadil]

Indeed. If Cathedrals couldn't be rebuilt Germany would have... significantly fewer.

Really. Thank goodness the Pyramids or Stonehenge haven't burned. No one knows how to build those. *nodnod*

They already rebuilt Stonehenge for a Spinal Tap concert.. admittedly a very small one.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

But stone doesn't burn... <.< You ought to know that. You're made out of marble.

Am not! I just look like it. You have to keep your skin moisturized.

*runs away* Stony lady!

I best be off, seriously.

[Farnhamia]

Really. Thank goodness the Pyramids or Stonehenge haven't burned. No one knows how to build those. *nodnod*

They already rebuilt Stonehenge for a Spinal Tap concert.. admittedly a very small one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carhenge ... but we digress.

[Neanderthaland]

But stone doesn't burn... <.< You ought to know that. You're made out of marble.

but it can lose integrity

It was such a shock to learn that the Pyramids accepted bribes.

[Bombadil]

They already rebuilt Stonehenge for a Spinal Tap concert.. admittedly a very small one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carhenge ... but we digress.

Typical Mods.. leaping into a thread jack and then calling time on it once they've had their fun..

Anyway, the head of LVMH has already committed 100M Euros to the rebuilding so I suspect it will all be fine. It is pretty dramatic though given where it sits at the heart of Paris both geographically and in the heart I suppose.

[Farnhamia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carhenge ... but we digress.

Typical Mods.. leaping into a thread jack and then calling time on it once they've had their fun..

Anyway, the head of LVMH has already committed 100M Euros to the rebuilding so I suspect it will all be fine. It is pretty dramatic though given where it sits at the heart of Paris both geographically and in the heart I suppose.

All of a sudden you're listening to me?

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

This is a thought I've had since I heard about it. It's like the Ship of Thesues problem, the one that goes "if you have one thing and over time change out all the components, is that thing still fundamentally the same thing, or is it new and something else?" (I know this analogy is pretty terrible at relating to the Notre Dame fire, but it's what you get shush)

My point is, all of the stuff destroyed in the fire will never come back, all the bricks and wood and materials that got burned will never be a part of Notre Dame again, and even if they do rebuild the cathedral, it'll just be recreations of the parts of Notre Dame that were lost.

So, is it still Notre Dame, or is it just sections of Notre Dame that survived the fire held together by recreations of what didn't survive?

Changing the subject, I'm gonna go back to a post I made earlier about the Ship of Theseus problem. In the article someone posted a while back about what got lost and what was saved (found here), I saw an interesting quote that kinda tied in to what I'm thinkin' with the whole Ship of Theseus analogy. It's the first paragraph of the "What's Lost" section, talking about the spire that collapsed.

"The dramatic and iconic spire, one of the more modern aspects of the cathedral, was built in the 19th century during a wave of enthusiasm for the cathedral’s restoration in the aftermath of Victor Hugo’s success with The Hunchback of Notre Dame. But Cohen says the public should not take any comfort in that modernity: art historians consider that another extremely valuable window into the techniques and styles of the time, and part of the layered history of the cathedral. 'You can copy that, but you’re faking history,' she said."

This is pretty much my line of thinking with why Notre Dame won't be the same after the fire. All of this is basically saying that what's lost is lost, and rebuilding it wouldn't bring back the glory it had before. It's essentially recreating what once was Notre Dame. It's not actually Notre Dame anymore. I really don't like this way of thinking, but it's currently what makes sense to me. If anyone can present a convincing argument otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it out.

[Bombadil]

Typical Mods.. leaping into a thread jack and then calling time on it once they've had their fun..

Anyway, the head of LVMH has already committed 100M Euros to the rebuilding so I suspect it will all be fine. It is pretty dramatic though given where it sits at the heart of Paris both geographically and in the heart I suppose.

All of a sudden you're listening to me?

Nah..

Anyway they discovered the cause.. https://imgur.com/a/FLqpwfX

[Farnhamia]

This is a thought I've had since I heard about it. It's like the Ship of Thesues problem, the one that goes "if you have one thing and over time change out all the components, is that thing still fundamentally the same thing, or is it new and something else?" (I know this analogy is pretty terrible at relating to the Notre Dame fire, but it's what you get shush)

My point is, all of the stuff destroyed in the fire will never come back, all the bricks and wood and materials that got burned will never be a part of Notre Dame again, and even if they do rebuild the cathedral, it'll just be recreations of the parts of Notre Dame that were lost.

So, is it still Notre Dame, or is it just sections of Notre Dame that survived the fire held together by recreations of what didn't survive?

Changing the subject, I'm gonna go back to a post I made earlier about the Ship of Theseus problem. In the article someone posted a while back about what got lost and what was saved (found here), I saw an interesting quote that kinda tied in to what I'm thinkin' with the whole Ship of Theseus analogy. It's the first paragraph of the "What's Lost" section, talking about the spire that collapsed.

"The dramatic and iconic spire, one of the more modern aspects of the cathedral, was built in the 19th century during a wave of enthusiasm for the cathedral’s restoration in the aftermath of Victor Hugo’s success with The Hunchback of Notre Dame. But Cohen says the public should not take any comfort in that modernity: art historians consider that another extremely valuable window into the techniques and styles of the time, and part of the layered history of the cathedral. 'You can copy that, but you’re faking history,' she said."

This is pretty much my line of thinking with why Notre Dame won't be the same after the fire. All of this is basically saying that what's lost is lost, and rebuilding it wouldn't bring back the glory it had before. It's essentially recreating what once was Notre Dame. It's not actually Notre Dame anymore. I really don't like this way of thinking, but it's currently what makes sense to me. If anyone can present a convincing argument otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it out.

While the Ship thing is an interesting thought experiment, it doesn't really belong here. If you'd like to start an independent thread about it, feel free.

[Kubra]

Meh, so long as it can be restored all is well. Most of the cathedral has been restored over the years as it is, so there's no point pining for some forlorn originality. The artifacts are well, soong as the structure is fine all is well.

[Bombadil]

This is pretty much my line of thinking with why Notre Dame won't be the same after the fire. All of this is basically saying that what's lost is lost, and rebuilding it wouldn't bring back the glory it had before. It's essentially recreating what once was Notre Dame. It's not actually Notre Dame anymore. I really don't like this way of thinking, but it's currently what makes sense to me. If anyone can present a convincing argument otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it out.

I mean.. it was left to rot for a long time until that restoration you note off the back of the success of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I think the key of Notre Dame is just it's location, I can't think of many other buildings that are so central to a city - many locations are along the side of a river but not on an island in the middle of the river at the heart of the city.

[New haven america]

This is a thought I've had since I heard about it. It's like the Ship of Thesues problem, the one that goes "if you have one thing and over time change out all the components, is that thing still fundamentally the same thing, or is it new and something else?" (I know this analogy is pretty terrible at relating to the Notre Dame fire, but it's what you get shush)

My point is, all of the stuff destroyed in the fire will never come back, all the bricks and wood and materials that got burned will never be a part of Notre Dame again, and even if they do rebuild the cathedral, it'll just be recreations of the parts of Notre Dame that were lost.

So, is it still Notre Dame, or is it just sections of Notre Dame that survived the fire held together by recreations of what didn't survive?

Changing the subject, I'm gonna go back to a post I made earlier about the Ship of Theseus problem. In the article someone posted a while back about what got lost and what was saved (found here), I saw an interesting quote that kinda tied in to what I'm thinkin' with the whole Ship of Theseus analogy. It's the first paragraph of the "What's Lost" section, talking about the spire that collapsed.

"The dramatic and iconic spire, one of the more modern aspects of the cathedral, was built in the 19th century during a wave of enthusiasm for the cathedral’s restoration in the aftermath of Victor Hugo’s success with The Hunchback of Notre Dame. But Cohen says the public should not take any comfort in that modernity: art historians consider that another extremely valuable window into the techniques and styles of the time, and part of the layered history of the cathedral. 'You can copy that, but you’re faking history,' she said."

This is pretty much my line of thinking with why Notre Dame won't be the same after the fire. All of this is basically saying that what's lost is lost, and rebuilding it wouldn't bring back the glory it had before. It's essentially recreating what once was Notre Dame. It's not actually Notre Dame anymore. I really don't like this way of thinking, but it's currently what makes sense to me. If anyone can present a convincing argument otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it out.

It's actually already been broken, torn down, and rebuilt like 4 or 5 times in the past 800 or 900 years.

[Farnhamia]

Changing the subject, I'm gonna go back to a post I made earlier about the Ship of Theseus problem. In the article someone posted a while back about what got lost and what was saved (found here), I saw an interesting quote that kinda tied in to what I'm thinkin' with the whole Ship of Theseus analogy. It's the first paragraph of the "What's Lost" section, talking about the spire that collapsed.

"The dramatic and iconic spire, one of the more modern aspects of the cathedral, was built in the 19th century during a wave of enthusiasm for the cathedral’s restoration in the aftermath of Victor Hugo’s success with The Hunchback of Notre Dame. But Cohen says the public should not take any comfort in that modernity: art historians consider that another extremely valuable window into the techniques and styles of the time, and part of the layered history of the cathedral. 'You can copy that, but you’re faking history,' she said."

This is pretty much my line of thinking with why Notre Dame won't be the same after the fire. All of this is basically saying that what's lost is lost, and rebuilding it wouldn't bring back the glory it had before. It's essentially recreating what once was Notre Dame. It's not actually Notre Dame anymore. I really don't like this way of thinking, but it's currently what makes sense to me. If anyone can present a convincing argument otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it out.

It's actually already been broken, torn down, and rebuilt like 4 or 5 times in the past 800 or 900 years.

No, it hasn't.

[Farnhamia]

This is pretty much my line of thinking with why Notre Dame won't be the same after the fire. All of this is basically saying that what's lost is lost, and rebuilding it wouldn't bring back the glory it had before. It's essentially recreating what once was Notre Dame. It's not actually Notre Dame anymore. I really don't like this way of thinking, but it's currently what makes sense to me. If anyone can present a convincing argument otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it out.

I mean.. it was left to rot for a long time until that restoration you note off the back of the success of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I think the key of Notre Dame is just it's location, I can't think of many other buildings that are so central to a city - many locations are along the side of a river but not on an island in the middle of the river at the heart of the city.

It's like they say, location, location, location.

[Kubra]

It's actually already been broken, torn down, and rebuilt like 4 or 5 times in the past 800 or 900 years.

No, it hasn't.

I think he's misunderstanding the previous religious sites built on the location to also be Notre Dame's.
Nonetheless, str8 from the wiki, the place has been sacked,restored, and remodeled multiple times. It's a shame to have to do it reactively, in response to a fire, but y'know it's still mostly there.

[New haven america]

It's actually already been broken, torn down, and rebuilt like 4 or 5 times in the past 800 or 900 years.

No, it hasn't.

So if the place has been so well taken care of and never broken, why did someone have to write an entire book to get the French government to fix it in the 1800's? Did the French Revolution's sacking of the place or the 15 and 1700's destruction of many prominent statues happen also not happen?

[Bear Stearns]

I'd imagine the contractors who were working at the time of the fire must be fearing for their lives. I would not be surprised if they are lynched.

[The Black Party]

I really hope no terrorist(s) shoots up the Cathedral anytime soon.

[Bombadil]

I mean.. it was left to rot for a long time until that restoration you note off the back of the success of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I think the key of Notre Dame is just it's location, I can't think of many other buildings that are so central to a city - many locations are along the side of a river but not on an island in the middle of the river at the heart of the city.

It's like they say, location, location, location.

As a commentator notes..

It is the navel of our country, its historical and geographical centre. All our roads start from here, whatever their destination: it is our focal point, our point zero. We convene in it and around it at our big national moments: to rejoice or to mourn. It is hard to think of a significant moment in the history of our capital that has not involved it.

[Valrifell]

I'm sorry but WHAT
Why would the French demolish an architectural masterpiece like that?

I think it was during the Revolution IIRC

Notre Dame was converted into a Temple of Reason back when that was briefly a thing. There might have been murmurings about destroying it but I don't think they tried all that hard.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I'd imagine the contractors who were working at the time of the fire must be fearing for their lives. I would not be surprised if they are lynched.

*theme music plays* The Gang Burns Down the Cathedral