Notre-Dame de Paris - cathedral on fire!

[Sideroxylon]

All of these old structures are Ships of Theseus, aren't they? When they rebuild this, can we really say this is still a medieval structure?

We can and we do in everyday human social contexts, the only place where such concepts of identity have meaning. As someone has pointed out, the fire becomes just another element of the building’s identity story.

 

[Myriad]

Has anyone been able to assess whether any of the stained glass survived?

In an ordinary room fire stained glass wouldn't have a chance. But in a huge space with the ceiling open, and suppression efforts going on, I couldn't make a prediction.

 

[Belz...]

They mean something, but some people make a fetish of them.

It's no fetish to value the history of achievements of mankind. It's keeping things in perspective.

It takes a certain kind of conservative, to get mad at people who don't want to trade human lives to preserve a building.

No one got made at anyone. It takes a certain kind of conservative to see this where it doesn't exist.

 

[Steve]

Would you accept if I told you that a human is just a meatsack?

It's not just a building. Would you say that about the Pyramids? It's part of our collective history.

Yes, I would accept that a human is just a meatsack. One that is capable of feeling fear and pain. Also one that has loved ones that would choose the meatsack's continued existence over the existence of a building.

It is just a building. One that different people value differently. Same with the pyramids.

A lot of the artwork within Notre Dame is considered a national treasure;the firemen are wlling to risk their lives to save as much of it as possible.

It may be that some of the firefighters are willing to risk their lives to save old stuff. Some likely are not. It's not the call of the individual firefighters. The decision of how to fight the fire is made by senior firefighter officials. They are the ones who decide if the firefighters should risk their lives.

There are people for whom history and culture mean nothing.

There are also people who keep the value of history and culture in perspective when weighing it against the perceived value of a human life.

Thing is, a LOT of people die every day, some in horrible circumstances, and I'm sure Steve doesn't lose much sleep over it. This is different.

Why personalize? How about we just discuss the event?

I believe that there are buildings and other key cultural objects that are worth the risk of human life. These are core parts of our culture that help give us inspiration, join us to society and to other people, and help define important parts of our emotional and intellectual lives. In many ways they help make us human. But the risks should be borne only by those knowledgeable and willing to take them.

I have no argument with this, especially the hilited part. Of course that is completely impractical. That is why those in charge of fighting the fire should be very wary of putting front line firefighters in danger.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I would accept that a human is just a meatsack. One that is capable of feeling fear and pain. Also one that has loved ones that would choose the meatsack's continued existence over the existence of a building.

And? A frog can feel fear and pain as well. Would you choose it over the Notre-Dame? That someone has feelings is irrelevant. We all have feelings, and more often than not those feelings are both fleeting and unimportant. The sum total of our culture, history and endeavours, however...

It is just a building.

No, I've just explained to you why it isn't.

Why personalize? How about we just discuss the event?

Who's personalising? I'm making a point that you are valuing hypothetical lives over an historic building, but that you probably don't worry about real lives being lost continuously. Is that incorrect?

 

[theprestige]

It's no fetish to value the history of achievements of mankind. It's keeping things in perspective.

I'd say that when you start talking about the need for other people to sacrifice their lives to preserve the history you value, you've made a fetish of the value of history.

No one got made at anyone.

Body of work. I stand by my analysis.

It takes a certain kind of conservative to see this where it doesn't exist.

Conservatism is a necessary part of wanting to preserve stuff. This is just abject flailing around

 

[Andy_Ross]

And? A frog can feel fear and pain as well. Would you choose it over the Notre-Dame? That someone has feelings is irrelevant. We all have feelings, and more often than not those feelings are both fleeting and unimportant. The sum total of our culture, history and endeavours, however...



No, I've just explained to you why it isn't.



Who's personalising? I'm making a point that you are valuing hypothetical lives over an historic building, but that you probably don't worry about real lives being lost continuously. Is that incorrect?

So next time get yousrlf in there.
I will watch.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In response to Trumpy's ignorant Tweet:

The Paris Fire authorities tweeted out IN ENGLISH that they were employing everything possible to bring the fire under control EXCEPT water-bombing, which could lead to a collapse of the entire structure.

An American replied in French: Veuillez nous excuser pour notre crétin orange

Translation: Please excuse us for our orange moron

 

[Belz...]

I'd say that when you start talking about the need for other people to sacrifice their lives to preserve the history you value, you've made a fetish of the value of history.

Valuing something highly is not fetishism. You're just labeling something you disagree with in order to make it seem bad. That's just propaganda.

Body of work. I stand by my analysis.

Insisting on something doesn't make it more true.

Conservatism is a necessary part of wanting to preserve stuff. This is just abject flailing around

Yes, that was exactly my point. None of us here are particularily conservative. You know this.

So next time get yousrlf in there.
I will watch.

You're not the first to suggest that for some reason my comment that I value important human achievements more than individuals somehow means that I should offer myself as a sacrifice to that ideal. Leaving aside the fact that this isn't even physically possible, what's the point of that suggestion?

 

[Steve]

And? A frog can feel fear and pain as well. Would you choose it over the Notre-Dame? That someone has feelings is irrelevant. We all have feelings, and more often than not those feelings are both fleeting and unimportant. The sum total of our culture, history and endeavours, however...



No, I've just explained to you why it isn't.



Who's personalising? I'm making a point that you are valuing hypothetical lives over an historic building, but that you probably don't worry about real lives being lost continuously. Is that incorrect?

The sum total of humanity's culture history and endeavors really is nothing special because we as a species are nothing special. It is only worth the hypothetical value a human puts on it. No humans, no value. Your opinion of value is irrelevant.

The lives I am valuing in this discussion are not hypothetical. They are the lives of Paris firefighters actively working on the Notre Dame fire. What I think about other lives being lost in other circumstances has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

However, if you want to relate this to personal circumstances how willing would you be to send your wife into the burning cathedral to rescue a painting that you valued? Or for that matter, to put your own life at risk?

 

[Steve]

Valuing something highly is not fetishism. You're just labeling something you disagree with in order to make it seem bad. That's just propaganda.



Insisting on something doesn't make it more true.



Yes, that was exactly my point. None of us here are particularily conservative. You know this.



You're not the first to suggest that for some reason my comment that I value important human achievements more than individuals somehow means that I should offer myself as a sacrifice to that ideal. Leaving aside the fact that this isn't even physically possible, what's the point of that suggestion?

Of course you would not dare offer yourself. You are too willing to offer strangers for that purpose.

 

[lionking]

For those saying “can’t be re-built”, much of Normandy was destroyed during WWII and re-built. St Malo was rubble, but now certainly looks and feels like a centuries old port. The same can happen with Notre Dame.

 

[Belz...]

The sum total of humanity's culture history and endeavors really is nothing special because we as a species are nothing special. It is only worth the hypothetical value a human puts on it. No humans, no value. Your opinion of value is irrelevant.

Seriously, you need to put your argument in order, because the above is contradictory. First of all I reject your moral relativism here, because it's completely irrelevant to the discussion. Second, my opinion of value is NOT irrelevant, since I'm talking about my values.

The lives I am valuing in this discussion are not hypothetical.

They are, since nobody died.

Of course you would not dare offer yourself. You are too willing to offer strangers for that purpose.

What are you even talking about? I Offered NOBODY, strangers or otherwise. And you're still repeating the complete nonsense of "offering" myself. What does that even mean? Offer myself for what, and through what mechanism? You're not making sense.

It really seems that the responses to my "asshat" comment are borne of sheer outrage, not any sort of reasoned thought.

 

[Belz...]

For those saying “can’t be re-built”, much of Normandy was destroyed during WWII and re-built. St Malo was rubble, but now certainly looks and feels like a centuries old port. The same can happen with Notre Dame.

Yeah, nobody said that.

We could rebuild the pyramids, too. But they wouldn't be the 4500 year-old pyramids, would they?

 

[sadhatter]

For those saying “can’t be re-built”, much of Normandy was destroyed during WWII and re-built. St Malo was rubble, but now certainly looks and feels like a centuries old port. The same can happen with Notre Dame.

If you stop caring about a key factor it doesn't matter. But that's missing the point.

But that's like saying " sugar is a white powder why can't drug addicts just sniff that? Seems like less would get killed if they did. "

It isn't important because it seems old it is important because it is old.

 

[Meadmaker]

For those saying “can’t be re-built”, much of Normandy was destroyed during WWII and re-built. St Malo was rubble, but now certainly looks and feels like a centuries old port. The same can happen with Notre Dame.

The first time I went to Germany I was surprised that some of those medieval churches and cathedrals had survived the war. I later learned they hadn't. Some of them were shells of buildings at the end of the war. Yeah, it can be rebuilt, and the fire will be part of the history.


Still, it was a very sad day for me. I went to mass in that cathedral once, back when I did that sort of thing. It's an impressive place, and it will be again.

 

[Steve]

Seriously, you need to put your argument in order, because the above is contradictory. First of all I reject your moral relativism here, because it's completely irrelevant to the discussion. Second, my opinion of value is NOT irrelevant, since I'm talking about my values.



They are, since nobody died.



What are you even talking about? I Offered NOBODY, strangers or otherwise. And you're still repeating the complete nonsense of "offering" myself. What does that even mean? Offer myself for what, and through what mechanism? You're not making sense.

It really seems that the responses to my "asshat" comment are borne of sheer outrage, not any sort of reasoned thought.

Reject away. No outrage here. Neither humanity nor their accomplishments are anything to get too worked up about. You seem more upset than anyone else posting here.

You do not like the word "offer" That is fine. It is easier to raise semantics than defend your position.

You would be content to see dead humans if they died while preserving some old thing that you like. I would be happy seeing the same old thing completely destroyed if it meant all firefighters (hypothetical or real, you choose) go home to their family at the end of their shift.

 

[arthwollipot]

Summary

• A devastating fire that began on Monday afternoon has destroyed the roof of the 850-year-old UNESCO world heritage landmark, whose spectacular Gothic spire collapsed before the eyes of horrified onlookers.
  
• The main structure of Notre Dame, as well as its two towers, has been saved, according to the Paris fire brigade chief.
  
• The blaze has been brought under control, firefighters confirmed in the early hours of Tuesday morning. “The fire is completely under control. It is partially extinguished, there are residual fires to put out,” said a spokesman.
• French president Emmanuel Macron said the worst has been avoided, but warned the fire would likely continue to burn for several days, cautioning: “the battle is not yet totally won”. He praised the courage and professionalism of firefighters.
  
• Macron asked the country to commit to rebuilding Notre Dame together, announcing an international fundraising campaign to raise money for the repairs. A site taking online donations has been launched.
  
• French billionaire François-Henri Pinault, the chairman and CEO of international luxury group Kering, pledged 100 million euros towards rebuilding Notre Dame, according to a statement.
  
• One firefighter was injured in the efforts to save the building.
  
• Expressions of support and commiseration have poured in from leaders around the world.

Source (my friends in the Australian Politics thread know how I like to keep up with the live blogs on the Guardian)

 

[Steve]

Summary

• A devastating fire that began on Monday afternoon has destroyed the roof of the 850-year-old UNESCO world heritage landmark, whose spectacular Gothic spire collapsed before the eyes of horrified onlookers.
  
• The main structure of Notre Dame, as well as its two towers, has been saved, according to the Paris fire brigade chief.
  
• The blaze has been brought under control, firefighters confirmed in the early hours of Tuesday morning. “The fire is completely under control. It is partially extinguished, there are residual fires to put out,” said a spokesman.
• French president Emmanuel Macron said the worst has been avoided, but warned the fire would likely continue to burn for several days, cautioning: “the battle is not yet totally won”. He praised the courage and professionalism of firefighters.
  
• Macron asked the country to commit to rebuilding Notre Dame together, announcing an international fundraising campaign to raise money for the repairs. A site taking online donations has been launched.
  
• French billionaire François-Henri Pinault, the chairman and CEO of international luxury group Kering, pledged 100 million euros towards rebuilding Notre Dame, according to a statement.
  
• One firefighter was injured in the efforts to save the building.
  
• Expressions of support and commiseration have poured in from leaders around the world.

Source (my friends in the Australian Politics thread know how I like to keep up with the live blogs on the Guardian)

That agrees with what I have heard from other sources. Saving the main structure will help a lot with reconstruction. It could have been worse, and for a long time looked like it would be. I wonder how much the Vatican will contribute from their vaults.

 

[Bob001]

Yeah, nobody said that.

We could rebuild the pyramids, too. But they wouldn't be the 4500 year-old pyramids, would they?

That's kind of an interesting philosophical question. If you stacked a bunch of blocks in the Nevada desert, you could build a pyramid, but not the 4500-year-old pyramid. But in this case, it appears that the primary stone structure is basically intact. What burned were the wooden supports and roofing, and the historical art and artifacts. How much of the original structure needs to be there to still be called the 800-year-old cathedral?