At the end of 2006, few weeks before the entrance of Bulgaria and Rumania in the European Union (the EU), the western analysts little did an evaluation flattering of the economies of both countries, indicating that to reach the objectives of the EU both partners had to determine an annual rate of growth noninferior to 7%. In fact, both States of the European Southeast did not fulfill at least the basic exigencies for the entrance in the Union: a level of development equivalent to 50% of the communitarian average. It was until then aided alternative of the cohesion bottoms. That is to say, the advantage to the maximum of the communitarian aid destined to stimulate the increase of the economic activities. Before the entrance of Sofia and Bucharest, the Baltic countries and Poland had to resort as well to the financing of Brussels. But the situation gave an unexpected and dramatic upset at the end of the last year, when the European Commission was forced to reconsider its policy of aid destined to the new ones partners. The world-wide crisis forced the eurcratas to contemplate the possibility at two speeds of accepting the unpopular project of a Europe , of a Union divided between rich and poor.
The countries of Eastern Europe were seen, then, forced to play the ungrateful role of relatives poor, incapable to raise head or to get rid of the complex of little reliable partners. A fast review of the recessive tendencies of the new partners of the EU shows the dangers that run their economies. One calculates that the GIP of the Czech Republic will be contracted around 2% from now until end of 2009. In the case of Hungary, the reduction will clear 6%, whereas in the one of Lithuania, the diminution could reach 12%. Authentic a setback, considering the utopian perspective of growth of 2005.
That they do not come me the scientists and its arrogance university professor to want to impose itself on the Philosophy, since the proper academy is a process subsequent to philosophical knowing, vide Greece ' ' Antiga' ' its traditional schools, beyond all the process of intellectual development throughout the existence human being. Since before Greece ' ' Antiga' ' , that some already had dared to attribute, has more remote times, gnese of the Philosophy, but saved speculations, the cradle until today consecrated would be in fact Greek. The Philosophy allowed the man, or will be that the man allowed It, to go beyond the mere empirismo, and that the materialists are restricted to its critical ones, therefore they had exactly not been able to leave to admit the importance of the abstraction, exactly being alicerada for the substance, therefore it is condition of the human being if to overlap what she has and to perpetuate itself in a perspective of devir, in a cognitivo process. Many schools had appeared for consequncia of the Philosophy, also the proper Theology if it bases on this principle. But as if to make the distinctions? The fact is that it is not intended to restrict itself, with models that limit the abrangncia of what we are and become inefficacious the creative act, therefore the science that today raises ' ' bandeira' ' of ' ' for homem' ' , however, it serves the ends others in detriment of the being (human) and condition scientific knowing something pauprrimo and subordinate, as ' said Max Weber in the workmanship well; ' Science and Politics: Two Vocaes' '. That the philosophers appear of long ago, not plus these predestinate mechanics to the repetismo university professor, something that surprises and it does not make to retake us the critical one of Nietzsche on this cretino and blistered academicismo.