Writing Samples

In this essay, written for a philosophy course at Tufts University, I examine the debate between John Rawls and Robert Nozick on the nature of justice and the distribution of resources in society. Rawls’s theory, with its emphasis on fairness and the “veil of ignorance,” offers a powerful argument for structuring society to benefit the least advantaged. Nozick, on the other hand, challenges this view by defending individual rights and the primacy of entitlement, arguing that justice is about respecting the outcomes of free exchanges, not achieving a particular pattern of distribution. By comparing their arguments, I discuss the strengths and limitations of each approach, and reflect on what a just society should prioritize: equality of opportunity, or the protection of individual liberty.

In this paper, written for a philosophy course at Tufts University studying the history of modern philosophy, I explore the metaphysical differences between Descartes and Spinoza, focusing on how each philosopher understands the relationship between mind, body, and nature. While Descartes famously argues for a strict dualism, separating mind and body into fundamentally different substances, I find Spinoza’s naturalistic approach much more compelling. Spinoza’s view (that mind and body are simply two aspects of the same underlying substance) offers a more unified and intuitive way to think about our place in the natural world. By comparing their arguments and examining the implications of each, I argue that Spinoza’s metaphysics not only avoids many of the problems that trouble Descartes’ dualism, but also provides a richer framework for understanding how we, as thinking beings, fit into nature.