The Old Man's Pride

          In Ernest Hemingway’s tale, The Old Man and the Sea, an underlying theme of pride leading to greatness is revealed through Santiago’s actions, for throughout his fishing experiences, he discovers the greatness of his life’s mission, the acknowledgement of his weaknesses, and the power of his enduring action as a result of his personal struggles with pride. Written after the world had struggled through years of conflict and turmoil caused by the Great Depression, the Spanish Civil War, and World Wars I and II, Hemingway conveyed a strong sense of Realism of the times in his novels, thus resulting in the harsh reality of the protagonist’s life and character in particular. Perhaps the notion of pride is so important to the story because the old man has precious little else due to these challenges. Nevertheless, his powerful sense of pride is converted to spiritual strength, ability, and even humility throughout the old man’s journey in Hemingway’s narrative.

          Santiago focused on fishing as his career and life mission, and, in order to complete it, he felt he must continue on and become a master in the work regardless of others’ opinions, thus displaying both his pride and perseverance. The old man is a well drawn, and was previously in his life known both by himself and throughout his town for being a fisherman of great skill. He was often humble about his dynamic abilities, however, for when he was told, “The best fisherman is you,” he simply replied, “No. I know others better.” This blunt humility seems to be at an imbalance with his pride, yet he differentiates between pride before others and pride for oneself. He values the latter over the former, which explains his contrasting actions throughout the story. Although this particular statement from the old man hints towards weak pride in himself, he refrains from exercising pride in the face of others in order to preserve his reputation. He continued to fish and train his apprentice. Santiago felt no need to prove himself to his fellows when he suffered through a period of bad luck because he already possessed pride and confidence in his own fishing accomplishments.

          In the old man’s 84-day long quest to catch a single fish, he abandoned the set boundaries of his past experience for a ferocious sense of pride, which allowed him to fight his redeeming battle to catch the marlin; however, he later realized the impure drive behind his actions and became aware of this fatal flaw after the marlin’s death. During this unlucky scheme of events, all of the old man’s previous fishing skills were put to the test, as well as his notable reputation.  His very career and lifelong dream are put at risk because of these continual losses. Nevertheless, his drive and motivation to personally persevere cause him to fish without complaint. When the old man finally captures the great marlin after an extreme struggle, he is too far out into sea and has no control over what is happening to his prized catch. His efforts to fend off the sharks are strong and supported with pride, yet they are in vain because of his ignorant mistake. Santiago is too prideful to admit, even to himself, to this faulty decision to sail against the rules of his previous experience in fishing in his attempt to save the marlin from the sharks. “And what beat you, he thought. ‘Nothing,’ he said aloud. ‘I went out too far.’” Perhaps it was his own ego that beat him in this case. After the quest and battle to catch the marlin, the old man was able to gain a newer perspective of his flaws and improve his character from that point on.

          The connection between the symbolic marlin and the old man demonstrated his fierce determination and resolution, which provided him with the strength he needed to avoid total defeat, in his attempt to protect the marlin from the sharks. This great fish was the catch of his life because of this empathetic experience. The marlin was Santiago’s brother in suffering, strength, and resolve. Three days of struggling to overcome this problem went by before the old man could kill his “prey;” however, during this dramatic change of events, he recognized his own trials and characteristics in the creature, seeing him as an equal opponent. When the sharks attacked after the fish had died, the old man’s pride in his catch swelled into his actions to defend the marlin to the best of his abilities. Even after the old man had lost the great fish to the sharks, he remained quite proud and even arrogant, perhaps in a way to protect himself mentally from his defeat. “He spat into the ocean and said, ‘Eat that, galanos. And make a dream you’ve killed a man.’” He refused to let this defeat affect him spiritually, either. The marlin, the old man’s “equal,” inspired him to improve his own virtues when he saw his own struggles in the empathy with this great fish; this experience is what gave him the ferocity and pride in defending his catch.
          It can be concluded that Santiago not only had a journey through a time of bad luck, through the sea, or to catch a marlin, but a personal adventure and discovery of his personal pride and its effect on his actions. The amelioration this story leaves is a legacy and demonstration of strength and greatness in spirit. Behind his endeavors to complete his fishing career, he learns of his life mission. When he suffers through 84 days of terrible luck, which may have devastated his life, the old man was able to discover his flaws. In a creature he was about to make his prey, he realized the value of virtues and moral courage and became inspired to use his pride for good. Ernest Hemingway’s captivating classic work, The Old Man and the Sea, provides a realistic and powerful example of the consequences of pride leading to great things through his main character, the old man Santiago.

I Could

Bring Back Prayer

(This is a short speech given on January 28, 2014 in front of the Gilbert Arizona School Board in response to the issue of public prayer being removed from meetings. Read the story on my friends and I at http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/Faith-and-Justice/7-2/MyView. Never stop praying, my friends.)

Hello Madame President and Members of the School Board,

My name is Olivia Jensen and I am fifteen years old.

Religious expression in government is a practice that America was founded upon. Our Founding Fathers revered God publicly, with a belief in a Supreme Being, a Creator, as their main principle.

If an aspect as important as this is removed not only from the deliberations of America’s federal government but from the daily workings of the people’s organizations, we are abandoning these foundational values.

George Washington said, “It is impossible to rightly govern without God.” He believed that prayer in action allowed his “thoughts, words, and work” to be directed for good, which, in settings such as these, is crucial to success.

Bringing prayer into these meetings will demonstrate an appreciation and acceptance for all religious backgrounds. This preservation of religious cultures and ideas, no matter what they may be, provides an atmosphere conducive to these school board meetings’ effectiveness.

Prayer is also important in regards to making decisions where the welfare of children is involved, which is the main function of this council. 

As a nation, we have removed the founding principles of faith from our systems, and it has already taken effect upon the youth of America. As a school board, there is an obligation to uphold this aspect of faith in your deliberations and decisions.

Having prayer of any kind also takes into account the religious views of those young minds who may be affected by the workings of this board as well as the diverse perspectives of the community.

One of the main purposes in supporting prayer in public meetings is the acknowledgement that all religion plays a vital role in sustaining the health of communities and promoting the moral behaviors in our society.

Furthermore, when decisions and important issues are being discussed, we reserve the unalienable right to acknowledge the influence of a higher power that we as people have not the capacity to create ourselves.

Freedom of religion is the very reason this country was created. If we are not willing to pray as a school board, do we even agree with the way our freedoms have been originally structured? 

Please consider this, and bring prayer back into these meetings, so, like Washington said, we may “rightly govern” our schools and preserve faith for the welfare of this nation’s youth.

The Law Perverted

The foundation of government must be established upon the principle of justice. Justice allows for liberty to exist. Groups who possess this liberty are, in the words of Bastiat, “the happiest, the most moral, and the most peaceable nations.” In order for a group or government to operate upon a foundation of justice, there are no circumstances where it is moral for a unified body to do that which is immoral for an individual, for if such an act is committed, the rights of members are unprotected, the system can fall into a negative form of governance, and the dissolving of the group’s government is inevitable. 

When a group of individuals organizes in order to govern themselves, the subsequent “common defense” must protect the rights of the individuals. Frédéric Bastiat, a prominent French philosopher and journalist of 1850, said in his classic essay The Law, “The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense; it is the substitution of collective for individual forces.” In the words of another philosopher John Locke, an influential English political thinker, political societies or governments begin when one individual agrees with others “to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it.” Thus we see that if a group of individuals joins together to govern themselves, laws are naturally created for the protection of the people. The people now place their individual safety in the hands of the collective. The collective law is intended to prevent injustice from infringing upon the rights of the people. In the words of Bastiat, its purpose is “to secure persons, liberties, and properties, and to maintain each in its right, so as to cause justice to reign over all.” Although the citizens have agreed to support this collective force so as to have these rights protected, it does not mean that the collective force can now commit any act that an individual cannot. It is true that they have gained defensive power as a result of the people’s unification, yet they are limited in their ability to take action. In order for justice to reign, the collective force of a group must focus on protecting the life, liberty, and property of the individuals it serves.

       When a group commits an act that individuals would be told was immoral, the system can fall into a negative state. If, for example, an individual citizen decided to seize the money of others by robbing a bank, such a crime would need to be righted, prevented, and punished. This is an unjust, direct act against the property of the people, which is considered to be one of the freedoms to be protected by law. However, the government, through the legalized plundering of the people through means such as taxes, fines, and fees, commits this crime without being restrained or compelled to give reparation. Thus, it does not matter whether or not an act is illegal or legal in order for it to commit an immoral act against the people. Bastiat argues that the ideal form of government is one with the “absence of plunder. This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, conciliation, and of good sense, which I shall proclaim with all the force of my lungs till the day of my death.” We see these ideas demonstrated in the historical examples of communism, especially that of the Russian Empire. The communist system destroys liberty and devastates the economy, while removing all private property and enslaving the population. In order for this despotic form of government to remain in power, it must compel the population to surrender their rights and property, which is directly against the purpose of law. To achieve this objective, the system had to possess a boundless authority over all aspects of national life. The lure of a socialist system such as this, according to Bastiat, is that the government can legally and ably infringe upon the rights of the people without being punished. Communist regimes routinely resort to violence, torture, and even targeted extermination in order to terrorize and punish transgressing citizens. All of these actions are highly immoral and even considered to be horrific, especially if committed by an individual person. In November of 1989, when the Iron Curtain finally collapsed, the world was able to clearly see the devastating effects that the communist rule had wrought in Europe. The economy and environment were both severely devastated, and communist nations today continue to suffer from poor living conditions and oppressive rule. Thus we see that the government is doomed to have a negative effect on its people if such actions are committed, whether they be accidental or intentional. 

       The perversion, contradiction, and downfall of a force cannot be avoided if unjust actions are committed as a whole group. The purpose of law is not to promote justice, but prevent the opposite from happening, which is injustice. Thus, any laws or acts that do not meet this description are considered improper. Although an action committed by a group may not be in direct attack of the people’s freedoms, it is not engaged in the active protection of the individual. As laws continue to be misused and perverted under causes of greed and false philanthropy, injustices begin to be committed. “The law perverted! And in its wake, all the collective forces of the nation,” Bastiat observed. We see evidence of the inevitable perversion of laws in the infamous collapses of Greece and Rome. These great empires collapsed as a result of national disunity, for society was no longer restrained by their religions and moral codes. In both cases, national and local violence, initiated by both the people and the government, state regulations and controls on the educational system, causing the family unit to crumble, and bribery in court, leading to the destruction of just ruling. The people no longer respected a state that acted outside its intended bounds, ungoverned by its previous principles, committing immoral acts against its own people. Charles de Montesquieu, another French philosopher whose writings had a strong influence on America’s Constitution, teaches in his treatise The Spirit of the Laws that when the principles of government are corrupted, even “the very best laws become bad and turn against the state,” as we see in this case. Society cannot survive under a ruling system of corruption and injustice. When injustice reigns supreme in the actions of a government, it cannot escape the inevitability of a complete collapse.

There are no circumstances where a group can do what is immoral for an individual to do. This truth is confirmed by the words of great philosophers and through historical examples. The rights of the people are unable to be protected if the government acts outside its intended bounds. The group’s system can fall into chaos and devastation. They cannot escape their imminent downfall if the governmental rule is immoral. If a government is to remain successful, it cannot commit such injustices.