4 ms·

Sure, if you don't care about art, or national pride, you might not get it. Put it this way... would you run into a burning building to try to save the Declara

by beat 8y ago

Sure, if you don't care about art, or national pride, you might not get it. Put it this way... would you run into a burning building to try to save the Declaration of Independence? (Assuming you're an American) Would most firefighters? Seems reasonable to me. The art inside the Notre Dame is on that level of importance, to France and to civilization itself.

philwelch 8y ago
The Declaration of Independence isn’t just a historical artifact; it’s an expression of ideas and beliefs that Americans have always fought and died for. Notre Dame is...was...a medieval Roman Catholic cathedral in a postmodern secular country, desecrated rather than revered by the revolutionaries who built modern France.
- Raphmedia 8y ago
  There are reports of people gathering around the site and singing. It was more than simply an old catholic building for the population.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    I’m not claiming the French people don’t care about Notre Dame. I’m merely observing that the analogy to the Declaration of Independence is significantly flawed. Notre Dame embodied ideas that modern France has repudiated rather than upheld.
    - Raphmedia 8y ago
      History and culture are very important to the French people. Our Lady of Paris is one of the cores of the city. The country and government being secular does not mean that the people left their Catholic roots behind. Atheist and religious French people share similar values and the past is very important to both.
    - beat 8y ago
      What's flawed about it? Are you saying firefighters wouldn't run into a burning building to save the original paper? To flip your point around, they'd save it because it's symbolically important. Same with the art in the Notre Dame.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        > What's flawed about it? I’ve literally been explaining that this whole time. Please try to read and comprehend things before issuing these vacuous replies.
        Raphmedia 8y ago
        While 39% of the population of France is not religious, 51% of the population is Catholic (2016). Even as an atheist French-Canadian I am hurt by the loss of this monument. I can't even begin to imagine how it feels to religious Parisians. --- Edit: Someone on Reddit wrote a very interesting comment about its historical significance: "Napoleon's coronation is incredibly recent in terms of Notre Dame's age. The amount of time between then and now represents less than 25% of the cathedral's existence. It was built in 1163, one year after Genghis Khan's birth (or at least our best guess of his birth). Notre Dame predated Marco Polo and the founding of the Ottoman Empire by more than a century. It predates the creation of Islam. At the time of its construction, the best estimates for the global population are ~300 million (less than the current population of the United States). The cathedral was almost 200 years old when the Black Death destroyed a third of the world's population. The USA is currently younger than Notre Dame was when the Forbidden City was constructed in Beijing. It was 3 centuries old when Machu Picchu was built and Leonardo Da Vinci was born. It was over 400 years old when Shakespeare's Globe Theatre was built. It predated the original King James Version of the Bible by 450 years." --- Among other relics, a piece of the Crown of Thorns was inside the Cathedral. I don't have a hard time picturing someone braving a blaze to save that.
        philwelch 8y ago
        I appreciate and understand your replies.
- crooked-v 8y ago
  It's also literally the center of modern Paris, as there's a point just in front of the building that all distances in the city are measured from.
- kakwa_ 8y ago
  Identity is a complex construct, and it needs symbols like that. Even if as a symbol of Church it's no longer relevant, it is still at least a past achievement to be proud of. And we are talking a building that has survived the French history, the Revolutionaries didn't destroy it, the Communards didn't destroy it (and the destruction in this event were quite extensive http://paris1900.lartnouveau.com/paris00/commune_destructions.htm http://paris1900.lartnouveau.com/paris00/commune_destruction...). It's a testament of the culture importance of the building and the fact it far exceeds its religious function. Disclaimer: French and living in Paris (I've not seen the fire however).
WalterBright 8y ago
> would you run into a burning building to try to save the Declaration of Independence? What matters about the DoI are the ideas, not the original piece of paper.
Markoff 8y ago
isn't it just a piece of paper already scanned it very high quality? by burning it you are not really opposing any information value no piece of paper/art and especially national pride is worth someone's health I live in fourth most visited city in Europe and I couldn't care less if most touristy church burned down, it's just church, people are overly dramatic, most important it's nobody died and whatever will be outcome life will go on tomorrow and in two weeks nobody will remember about it in news
- beat 8y ago
  Most people would disagree with you. Many would act at risk of their own lives to save treasures that they feel are part of their national identity or human civilization. Just because you don't feel that way doesn't mean they're all wrong.
  - Markoff 8y ago
    I guess most of those people you describe are childless minority or people too young without children mumbling idealistic phrases any sane parent would think twice risking his life over a THING. risking life to save other (strangers) lives it's questionable, risking life to save things it's just stupid
    - JshWright 8y ago
      There is always a continuum of risk. By your argument, anyone who traveled to go view a historic monument is "just stupid", since there is a non-zero risk that they will die in a car accident along the way. If entering a burning building (which isn't actually _that_ risky) to salvage one-of-a-kind historic artifacts isn't something you would chose to do, that's fine. Don't label the actions of those that make a different choice "stupid".
    - beat 8y ago
      Push your logic a little farther. Any sane parent would think twice about risking their life for their child's life. Now push another direction... if you'd sacrifice your own life for your child, what about for someone else's child? A few years ago, I ran into the street in front of a moving car to try to save a child I didn't even know. I wouldn't have made it on time; luckily the car saw the child and slammed the brakes in time. But it's interesting to find just how deep one's own altruism will go. (Also interestingly, I did this in front of my spouse and our own children) There's nothing unusual for being willing to die for a THING. Hell, people have sacrificed themselves in the millions for mere ideas. People fight to the death over tiny scraps of symbolic land. It may seem stupid to you. It's stupid to me, too. But that's what people do. That's what people are.

by beat 8y ago

philwelch 8y ago

The Declaration of Independence isn’t just a historical artifact; it’s an expression of ideas and beliefs that Americans have always fought and died for. Notre Dame is...was...a medieval Roman Catholic cathedral in a postmodern secular country, desecrated rather than revered by the revolutionaries who built modern France.

Raphmedia 8y ago
There are reports of people gathering around the site and singing. It was more than simply an old catholic building for the population.
- philwelch 8y ago
  I’m not claiming the French people don’t care about Notre Dame. I’m merely observing that the analogy to the Declaration of Independence is significantly flawed. Notre Dame embodied ideas that modern France has repudiated rather than upheld.
  - Raphmedia 8y ago
    History and culture are very important to the French people. Our Lady of Paris is one of the cores of the city. The country and government being secular does not mean that the people left their Catholic roots behind. Atheist and religious French people share similar values and the past is very important to both.
  - beat 8y ago
    What's flawed about it? Are you saying firefighters wouldn't run into a burning building to save the original paper? To flip your point around, they'd save it because it's symbolically important. Same with the art in the Notre Dame.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      > What's flawed about it? I’ve literally been explaining that this whole time. Please try to read and comprehend things before issuing these vacuous replies.
      - Raphmedia 8y ago
        While 39% of the population of France is not religious, 51% of the population is Catholic (2016). Even as an atheist French-Canadian I am hurt by the loss of this monument. I can't even begin to imagine how it feels to religious Parisians. --- Edit: Someone on Reddit wrote a very interesting comment about its historical significance: "Napoleon's coronation is incredibly recent in terms of Notre Dame's age. The amount of time between then and now represents less than 25% of the cathedral's existence. It was built in 1163, one year after Genghis Khan's birth (or at least our best guess of his birth). Notre Dame predated Marco Polo and the founding of the Ottoman Empire by more than a century. It predates the creation of Islam. At the time of its construction, the best estimates for the global population are ~300 million (less than the current population of the United States). The cathedral was almost 200 years old when the Black Death destroyed a third of the world's population. The USA is currently younger than Notre Dame was when the Forbidden City was constructed in Beijing. It was 3 centuries old when Machu Picchu was built and Leonardo Da Vinci was born. It was over 400 years old when Shakespeare's Globe Theatre was built. It predated the original King James Version of the Bible by 450 years." --- Among other relics, a piece of the Crown of Thorns was inside the Cathedral. I don't have a hard time picturing someone braving a blaze to save that.
        philwelch 8y ago
        I appreciate and understand your replies.
crooked-v 8y ago
It's also literally the center of modern Paris, as there's a point just in front of the building that all distances in the city are measured from.
kakwa_ 8y ago
Identity is a complex construct, and it needs symbols like that. Even if as a symbol of Church it's no longer relevant, it is still at least a past achievement to be proud of. And we are talking a building that has survived the French history, the Revolutionaries didn't destroy it, the Communards didn't destroy it (and the destruction in this event were quite extensive http://paris1900.lartnouveau.com/paris00/commune_destructions.htm http://paris1900.lartnouveau.com/paris00/commune_destruction...). It's a testament of the culture importance of the building and the fact it far exceeds its religious function. Disclaimer: French and living in Paris (I've not seen the fire however).

WalterBright 8y ago

> would you run into a burning building to try to save the Declaration of Independence? What matters about the DoI are the ideas, not the original piece of paper.

Markoff 8y ago

isn't it just a piece of paper already scanned it very high quality? by burning it you are not really opposing any information value no piece of paper/art and especially national pride is worth someone's health I live in fourth most visited city in Europe and I couldn't care less if most touristy church burned down, it's just church, people are overly dramatic, most important it's nobody died and whatever will be outcome life will go on tomorrow and in two weeks nobody will remember about it in news

beat 8y ago
Most people would disagree with you. Many would act at risk of their own lives to save treasures that they feel are part of their national identity or human civilization. Just because you don't feel that way doesn't mean they're all wrong.
- Markoff 8y ago
  I guess most of those people you describe are childless minority or people too young without children mumbling idealistic phrases any sane parent would think twice risking his life over a THING. risking life to save other (strangers) lives it's questionable, risking life to save things it's just stupid
  - JshWright 8y ago
    There is always a continuum of risk. By your argument, anyone who traveled to go view a historic monument is "just stupid", since there is a non-zero risk that they will die in a car accident along the way. If entering a burning building (which isn't actually _that_ risky) to salvage one-of-a-kind historic artifacts isn't something you would chose to do, that's fine. Don't label the actions of those that make a different choice "stupid".
  - beat 8y ago
    Push your logic a little farther. Any sane parent would think twice about risking their life for their child's life. Now push another direction... if you'd sacrifice your own life for your child, what about for someone else's child? A few years ago, I ran into the street in front of a moving car to try to save a child I didn't even know. I wouldn't have made it on time; luckily the car saw the child and slammed the brakes in time. But it's interesting to find just how deep one's own altruism will go. (Also interestingly, I did this in front of my spouse and our own children) There's nothing unusual for being willing to die for a THING. Hell, people have sacrificed themselves in the millions for mere ideas. People fight to the death over tiny scraps of symbolic land. It may seem stupid to you. It's stupid to me, too. But that's what people do. That's what people are.