Jump to content

Talk:Rudolf Christoph Eucken

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older comments

[edit]

He was not Frisian, but member of the "Burschenschaft Frisia Göttingen 1863", which is something completely different. I am changing that to German. You could argue that his hometown is in Frisia, but that is like saying George Washington is Virginian.


I tried to correct his birthplace today and screwed up his page, his portrait is now missing. I'm sorry, and will not mess with this again. My change was meant well. Hanover was conquered by Prussia in 1866, at that time it became a Prussian province. The German Empire was declared in 1871 at the victorious conclusion of the Franco-Prussian War. At which time Prussia became the largest state, or kingdom in this new entity, Germany. Hanover now existed as a Prussian province, with the Prussian government mediating between it and the Imperial German government. (But ofcourse before 1918 the Kaiser's government was appointed as the executive branch of government for both Prussia and the new German Empire, an unusual arrangment that was the child of how this nation was formed by Prussian military prowess followed by German pride in it's success and nationalism. So the gist of it is he was born in an independent European kingdom, Hanover. Not in a yet to come German Empire. Prussia (2/3 of Germany, when it existed, was created by war. Germany in 1871 was created by acclimation by the monarchs of the surviving German states (minus Luxumbourg, and ofcourse Austria-Hungary). When he was born he would have been a subject of Hanover with no loyalty to the then Prussian government in Berlin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippersnapper1 (talkcontribs) 06:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falsified quote

[edit]

If you read carefully, you will see that Evelyn Underhill (1911), Mysticism, p. 39 does not correspond to R. C. Eucken, Der Sinn und Wert des Lebens, 1908, p. 81. Apparently Underhill forged the quote (or she could just be mistaken). In any case we cannot have a poorly sourced quote in the article. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think anyone would object if you removed it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]