That is not really applicable here. The cathedral itself was never really destroyed even though the Christian rejectors’ mob ransacked it in the “French” Revolution and the latest fire also did not really cause structural damage.

It is also still a functioning Christian church with services.

The ship of Theseus was never really destroyed either. It was a functional ship with services.

I mean it's a living church. The entire thing can be rebuilt and it will still be the real Notre Dame de Paris. It'd have to stop being used for the original function.

Similar to how the California missions that are still parishes will continue to be complete. The ones that are museums will deteriorate.

The beauty of a building is more than just its physical materials but also those things for which it was built and those people who built it

> The entire thing can be rebuilt and it will still be the real Notre Dame de Paris

This statement is kindof the whole point of the "ship of Theseus" thought experiment.

A more favorable interpretation would be that the church consists of more than just its worldly parts; its place and use are also part of its identity. Even if you'd completely rebuild the church building, the other parts of its identity would persist. Therefore, the "ship of Theuses" argument doesn't apply, as, in this case, we would never replace all parts of [the identity of] this church.

It feels like you’re referring to the “ship of Theseus” as an argument that the identity does not persist…

It’s not.

It’s a hypothetical designed to call attention to the exact thing you’re saying: that potentially identity is more than the specific physical parts.

I gave my differentiating factor..

Yes it's my take on the ship of Theseus problem.

In that problem we re asked to consider if a ship with all it's parts replaced is the same as the original..

My argument is that so long as the ship is being used for the same purpose by the same people then it is. Without a purpose, wood in the shape of a ship is not even necessarily a ship

Things are more than just their physical form.

Our own bodies are ships of Theseus. I've read once that every atom in our bodies are replaced in 40 years. In 40 years, our bodies change a lot and so are our minds. What make Theseus' ship the ship of Theseus, is that Theseus is the owner of the ship. Ownership is a social convention, a construction of the mind.

What makes Notre Dame, is that people generally agree it is still Notre Dame. If hypothetically we were in a time of modernism craze, and that our government decided to rebuilt it in some modern style (there actually was proposals like that), it would still be the people who makes it Notre Dame de Paris or not.

> The entire thing can be rebuilt and it will still be the real Notre Dame de Paris. It'd have to stop being used for the original function.

This is demonstrably wrong, as we have many examples of old buildings and we know what people actually feel about them.

Consider two very famous examples of buildings that completely changed their purpose, but are still the same building: the Pantheon and the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. The Pantheon was a Roman temple to all of the Gods when it was built in 126, and became a Christian church ~400 years later, but everyone recognizes it as the same building. The Hagia Sophia was a Christian church built in 537, and 1100 years later became an Islamic mosque, but it is still the same building to everyone.

Then for the opposite example: St Peter's Basillica at the Vatican. This was built in 1506 on the site of a much older church, also called St Peter's Basillica (commissioned by emperor Constantine), which also served as a Christian church, was also used the parish of the Pope, was also the location of papal coronation and so on. And still, no one would say "St Peter's Basilica was built by Saint Constantine", because the current basilica is universally recognized as a new building, despite serving the same function.

A building is recognized for the beauty and specifics of its structural and painterly elements, not for its role. If it is destroyed and rebuilt in almost the same size and shape, then it is recognized as the same building; regardless of entirely changing its purpose.

Conversely, if a building is rebuilt into a completely different shape, even a universally admired as beautiful one, it is considered a different building, even if keeps serving the same purpose.

The Pantheon no longer exists. It is now the church of St Mary and the Martyrs. And this is the difference I'm getting at.

The Pantheon is a temple dedicated to all the ancient Roman gods. It cannot be both that and the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs. When the Church took it over, it ceased to be the Pantheon.

There's no doubt the building is the same, and we can argue about how 'true to form' it is. But that's the point. When it stopped being what it originally was, its 'form' is now a goal to never deviate from.

Whereas, the various depictions of the martyrs present within the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs, for example, has no such ideal yet. The Church can (and does) shift that around. However, if it were to stop being the church of st Mary and the Martyrs, then it would have an ideal form that any restorer may want to restore it towards.

You could try doing a search for the Pantheon vs the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs to see which is alive in the general consciousness and which isn't. Ultimately, the Pantheon is not a temple to the Roman gods, it's a particular building in Rome. It used to be a temple, now it's a church, maybe 100 years from now it will be an exhibition space. It will still be the same building. And the building is far more culturally important then the current parish inhabiting it.

For what’s its worth, this conversation has been a treat to read. Not sure who I agree with.

IMO, they're both right, but for anon291's reasons. tsimionescu's perception of The Pantheon is reflective of a shared cultural consciousness, albeit one that's cosmopolitan and intellectual. He and anon291 (maybe) see different buildings because they either have different cultural perspectives--i.e. perhaps anon291 is a practicing Catholic (or esoteric pagan?)--or at least anon291 is cognizant that many people would see a space with a meaning quite distinct than tsimionescu's. The Hagi Sophia is great example--most foreigners see one building, local Eastern Orthodox see another, and local Muslims a third.

It's difficult, if not impossible, for people to see architectural spaces in the way an animal or alien might see them. Even when the culture which built it is totally alien or unknown, that basic fact, plus the context in which it is seen by the observer (including how they arrived there), as well as typical architectural features (e.g. steps) imbue it with meaning that color everything about it. Our whole world is like that. Take, for example, a stop sign--we simply can't perceive that object, at least without effort, without the culturally imbued meaning. It's not just a red & white octagon with shapes in the middle; the meaning vastly overshadows its raw physical properties.

You’ll have to wait a long time to think about it, lot of materials of the cathédrale are originals (especially the stones)