Category Archives: Uncategorized

This particular essay that I had written in my first year for a philosophy class is slightly more structured from academic readings than most of my posts. Nonetheless, the compelling positions made by both sides of the same coin of this argument are quite simple to demonstrate, and an interesting debate at that. Firstly, I will be discussing Thomas Hobbes’ understanding of human nature, then explaining the dissenting account of human nature put forward by philosophical adversary Peter Kropotkin. After explaining both philosophers’ views, I will be arguing why I agree with Kropotkin’s account more overall.

It may have been a little trivial and even utilitarian receiving several participation trophies and awards as children; often for no more than being involved with the respective event at hand. However, democratic participation is considered anything but trivial- it is the mechanism through which the gears of democracy’s engine turns. The outcomes of the 2016 and 2020 US Presidential elections remain fresh in mind as two dominant scenarios that are able manifest through a fondness for (or a lack of) participation in a democracy. Below, let us evaluate the issues that persist for democratic participation within Canada, and how that affects the choices Canadians make through our elections and voting system.

It was upon taking an Intellectual Property course during my time at university that I had a specific idea of the type of job I desired, within the field I knew I was interested in. My interest was piqued from the onset by the several intricacies that exist within Canadian law; learning about the intersection between IP law and how it is used in practice only further increased my inclination to launch my career into IP. Trademark and copyright in particular stood out to me as key aspects of some of the complex issues that I envision myself working with. Our IP system works to solve several issues brought up by creativity and innovation, but no system is without some form of shortcoming. Below, let us examine the ways in which the IP system has succeeded, some of the biases it hosts, and lastly, a proposed solution to bias within international IP.

The innate nature of humanity has always been a point of contention for scholarly debate; especially opening up on the international scale with the expansion of International Relations after the events of World War II. One instance of both sides of this argument being clearly illustrated is with the following example: two humans in the state of nature’s interaction options after encountering five rich, juicy apples perched upon a high tree. They can either use their energy in tandem with one another to reach the five apples, then share the resources that they provide. Alternatively, the two can decide that, alone, they would be gaining more resources if they reached the fruit by themselves. This alternative option is in accordance with rational gains maximization, and a core point of my essay. Below, I examine the nature of self-interested individuals on the global scale, and the devastating effects that it can be caused from this problematic outlook.

Creating a justice system that holds ethics and morality to a high standard within it, while maintaining the capacity to enforce and legislate laws, is no easy task; and Canada’s criminal justice system is no exception. Below, I explore certain ways in which the criminal justice system of Canada falls short of its responsibilities, and examine some of the historical events & context in which our justice system rests upon today.

A picture’s worth 1000 words, or so I’ve heard; when I was researching for this essay, I found so much to write about that I decided to sew three of them together to illustrate the core issue at play here. When it comes to technology, the state and its respective people have much to discuss and come to an agreement over. As is portrayed below, technology is developing at such a rapid rate that it diminishes the security rights we as collective citizens are entitled to. Although I believe this essay presents a somewhat unwelcoming reality of how technology is used and may be manipulated in the future, nonetheless it is vital to understanding and contributing to the dialogue that quite evidently needs to take place.

During my time at McMaster university, one of the courses that stuck out to me the most was called ‘The Causes of War,’ for which I had written this essay. The course was encaptivating for multiple reasons; among them, the professor had been teaching the class upwards of 25 years, and claimed he disliked discussing the definitions of war (in relation to the rest of the course) for his fear was that political scientists would become preoccupied with mundane terminology over sincere analysis. And yet, the passion with which he spoke of the so-called boring definitions caused most of us students to stay until the very end of those three-hour classes on chilly Monday nights. Below, I attempt to properly define and relate what war is from an undertaking of intricately various perspectives, and accordingly, I have added my own analysis of which conception I believe to be the most encompassing of them all. The worthwhile read suggests that defining war is much more perplexing than the likes of that which Merriam-Webster could easily accomplish, implicating serious moral ethics within its five perspectives.

The topic of this essay revolves around the issue concerning the interests of states versus the narrative of the freedom of speech; an interesting read within the context of our technologically-developing modern times. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that “[i]f all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” Below, let us examine Mill’s justification, limitations to the right of free speech he eloquently presents, and lastly, my own perspective on the matter.