UCAS PERSONAL STATEMENT (OXFORD PPE OFFER-HOLDER)

I grew up feeling the impact of one of the most prominent political and economic
crises in Brazilian history, marked by a corruption controversy that eventually led to a
crisis in the legitimacy of public institutions.

Given that, I have always been intrigued by the discrepancy of opinions among
people around me, though I did not initially realize I was in one of the most polarized
contexts in history.

At that time, my day-to-day life was utterly immersed in social discussions, and
thus, I would be exposed to a myriad of perspectives that even went against concepts
my parents used to teach me. I could not understand how people could diverge so
significantly, considering we were all living the same reality. This context drove me to
delve deeper into economics and political systems as a way to answer all questions I
was acquainted with.

I initially explored the income distribution and the behavior of the market within
the broader context of one country, for instance, political instabilities. I also examined the
economy as a mechanism for political legitimacy, a trait often seen in despotic regimes.

The book that better gave me a sense of comprehension was The Wealth of
Nations by Smith. This work was relevant because the arguments were given through
historical factors, establishing the degree to which the government affects the economy.
Many of the phenomena I faced daily, such as capital accumulation and labor division,
found explanations within his work. This knowledge led me to take part in Wharton
Global Investment Competition, where I could develop my understanding of the market
as a member of the macroeconomic organism, thereby having in-person contact with all
this world and how the economy responds to private stimuli.

Naturally, the next step in my quest to understand the evolving world was to
explore political systems. Despite my young age, my perspective was already biased
due to the narratives I underwent daily, which were defended so emotionally that I could
not ignore them. This bias fostered a singular critical approach to everything I
discovered.

What intrigued me the most was the structures and means of power retention.
How did we evolve from an archaic state of mere survival to complex hierarchical
structures where submission to the state is a common notion? Even on a smaller scale, I
pondered the underlying social influences on individuals, such as aesthetic values.

In pursuing knowledge, I was influenced by two books: Leviathan by Hobbes and

The Social Contract by Rousseau. The intriguing aspect of these works is that, despite
their antagonistic assumptions, it is impossible to prove that either of them is right or
wrong. Our society leans toward Rousseau's values of democracy and the general will,
but asserting that he is more successful than Hobbes would be superficial. Hobbes's
ideas encompass a significant portion of our understanding of the state, coercion, and
civil laws.

Diving more deeply into this matter, I investigated why political systems fail. One
reason why Leviathan and The Social Contract are so historically meaningful is that they
are not only political investigations but also philosophical. They investigate profoundly
how human nature is shaped and fits in one broader context, how these beings act
based on certain stimuli, and this way, they try to coordinate societies. Upon that, I was
introduced to canonical books that shaped my interaction with my metaphysical
constitution and my understanding of collectiveness.

Crime and Punishment, by Dostoyevsky, made me reflect on the moral values our
society inherently disposes of, as well as the influence it has upon our actions and the
way our context can shape and even distort our notion of morals, and how this was
constructed throughout history. For me, the most crucial point is the inner necessity the
protagonist has to justify his actions, highlighting the nature of the morals in the
constitution of our actions.