It is a report which unconsciously we make very early: the smiles, the
chirps and other gesticulations of a baby translate the beneficial influence
of his/her parents and oh his entourage. The young baby seems happy of
the simple presence of the others, and he/she is irritated by their absence.
One could affirm, at first view, that their happiness is due to the pleasure
provided by his/her parents: food, heat, caresses, even the changes of
wet clothes... But then he/she should express its satisfaction to see other
people only when necessary, which is far from being the case. One can say
without taking too much risk that the baby " recorded " the people of his
entourage as being suppliers of pleasures and that it is delighted by their
proximity. At our beginning, happiness and pleasure merge.
During childhood one still often tends to regard his parents as distributors:
" Mom, Dad, I want an ice-cream ! ". "can i have a hug ? " are examples
of common sentences.
However the concept of friendship and that of love (not egoist) appear
with the first " not calculated " gifts with close people. One likes to
receive surprises and to give gifts.
The same object seems to have more value if it is given by somebody
that if it is taken or if it is bought.
For the child, it starts to become more pleasant to receive an object if he/she does not expect it. The games are also more pleasant with the others. The joy of managing to win in a collective game is more uncertain than the one of solving a puzzle, so it is stronger. The discussions with the comrades are interesting: one learns tricks from the others of which one had not thought. The simple fact of discovering them without expecting them is a joy.
If it becomes clear for the conscience of the teenager that the others
are a source of happiness, it is less obvious not to regard them as objects.
The former child was marked by all these toys and all these delicacies
which gave him pleasure. Why the others would not be to some extent an
additional pleasure? The development of the caresses and sexuality makes
think that the others can give us pleasant feelings at the level of the
body, almost like the delicacies do it at the level of the tongue. One
becomes possessive with his friends, as one was it with his toys. As the
happiness gotten from our friends is more intense, the jealousy becomes
disproportionate. But it is not pleasant for our entourage to be owned
like objects, and painful conflicts are born from this strong form of selfishness.
In the same time, our parents cease being " distributors ". They ask
us to be useful and to bring something to them too. Definitely, the others
are more difficult to handle than one believed... What a disappointment!
There are many definitions of the adulthood, simplest being that to
be more than 18 years old (or 21).
" To pay more attention to the happiness of others " is a better description
of this phenomenon.
For example, a young person can realize at the age of 21 that his parents
will not keep him in their house if he brings an impossible life to them.
It is perhaps by the negative consequences of the misfortune of our entourage,
by the absence of affection which results from it, that one realizes of
their importance.
When it was understood that to shout at my girlfriend is not sufficient
so that she does not leave me, I can be able to ask myself a question:
" perhaps did she leave me because I did not make her happy? "
In the same way, while trying out it, one realizes that the best way
of having good friends is to render service to them, to invite them, to
make them laugh, etc...
But even with best the will of the world, one is often prone to disappointments
with the others. A person to whom we offered a gift, did not thank us.
Another did not even want to give the same service to us that we gave him...
The investment seems seldom profitable... As for the very coveted objects,
the result is seldom with the height of our hopes.
And if the problem precisely came from our expectancies?
If happiness is a pleasant surprise, it is better to avoid envisaging
it! If we expect too much there is no more surprising effect. A magic trick
is more spectacular if one does not know how it functions. It is perhaps
not wise to calculate what the others will bring to us and how: at best,
if it arrives what one had foreseen, there is no surprise. In the worst
case, if that does not appears to be as good as expected, one is likely
to be disappointed, and disappointment is a strong form of unhappiness.
How to do so that the others return to me the happiness i gave to them,
without I being obsessed by this question?
If I concentrate my kindness on an individual, nothing says to me that
he is not an egoist who will take the maximum while giving the minimum.
I could also try to make several people happy, by supporting those
who seem the most generous, a just reward after all. But one can be mistaken:
the people whom one believed generous can prove to be egoistic... and one
falls from his dreams !
How to avoid all these disappointments? By searching the root of the
problem ! If my expectancies are the source of my sadness, then I should
not any more predict what will be my pleasure.
It is a question of trying to make the others happy, without imagining
what could be the counterparts.
But if I do not think of it, will the counterpart come nevertheless,
by surprise?
Perhaps!
Let's examine the caricature of an egoistic person to whom I give a
service: if he realizes that I give more to people who deserve it, perhaps
he will make efforts to give too.
If he is an altruistic person, the problem does not exist.
In all the cases it is possible to have a return of happiness. But
if I do not want to be disappointed, it is better that I do not evaluate
it: neither its probability, neither its strength, nor its nature.
If my happiness depends on the others' happiness, it is better for me
to try to make the maximum of people happy ! Besides, that will prevent
that I deal only with a few people who would not deserve it...
Obviously, few people have the possibility of appreciably improving
the condition of humanity. Some leaders perhaps, some philosophers (follow
my eyes)... There are also the inventors, the artists, the religious dignitaries
or the makers of revolutions (provided that these are positive and not
destructing)...
However each one takes part in the construction, and a member of a
neighborhood association, a concierge, or an employee can have a positive
influence on many people around them.
Moreover a small association can grow, encourage with the creation
of other similar organizations and have an influence upon the entire
nation, even several nations !
In fact, by using the broad communication means, each one of us could
have his voice heard and share its " good ideas " with the others. I think
of the letters to the Editor in the newspapers, of the free speech programs
on the radios or on the TV channels, and of the possibility of broadcasting
a point of view in the whole world with Internet.
The democratic political parties have obviously their share of the
effort. Nobody can say whether the people are happy, only the people themselves
can do it. It is the principle of the elections and of the referendums:
only the entire people can express his rejection or his satisfaction. One
can thus promote the direct democracy (more frequent elections and referendums
proposed by the people) by using for example the modern techniques of the
data processing (Internet) of the telephone (vocal services) of the mail
(centers of optical reading) or more classically of the ballot boxes.
In the economic domain, one can fight against the concentration of
the capital: since years, almost everywhere in the world, a minority of
rich people increases his wealth whereas a majority sees its standard of
living stagnating or decreasing. In the same way, a minority of large companies
purchase or lead to the bankruptcy the smallest ones, ending with monopolies
or quasi monopolies.
Let's point out the reasons of the anti-trust laws: in the case of
a monopoly, a company can increase its prices as wanted, decrease the quality
of its products and finally impose to its employees deplorable wages and
poor working conditions.
One can even promote companies in which the major part of the decisions
would be taken democratically. (the trade unions and the co-operatives
could show the way)
etc... etc...
If one is believing in god, whatever one's religion, one inevitably
cares of the others' happiness. I will only quote the Christian religions,
most widespread in the western nations:
" the secret of life is to bring happiness to others " " One should
not do to the others what one would not like that the others do to him,
it is the most important thing "
" " it is necessary to help the poorest " " let us forgive those who
offended us "
In fact, it is logical that our creator want us to be happy! And if
God gave humans the faculty to feel happiness and sadness, it is
surely so that its creature takes into account this feeling and should
direct his actions toward what makes humans happy.
If one is an atheist, one does not have less imagination than the others
!
It was previously said that a good way of being happy was to be concerned
with the happiness of humanity. But, as for our every day actions, that
seems quite abstract ... However if one imagines all the human beings as
if they were only one living organism, just like a god, it is sometimes
easier to see which are our doings that the whole humanity would
judge good and which are those which would be judged bad " God sees us!
" say the believers. In the same way, an atheist has the right to imagine
that a "humanity God" looks at him and judges him, if that facilitates
the choices one has to make.
Now we could try to work concretely for the benefit of the humanity.
Paragraph VII provides some ideas of action. But can we improve our way
of working ?
I believe it is useful to mention which method gave me the ideas of
the preceding paragraphs. It is the scientific method! It can seem pretentious
to use this adjective whereas I do not have a diploma that says i am a
Doctor in Happiness, from the famous University of ... Still I believe
that this method is useful in many ways, including when dealing with the
meaning of our existence.
Let us recall what is the scientific method:
1 an objective is laid down (for example and randomly... " to be happy
")
2 One experience concrete actions to achieve this goal (for example...
" to eat an ice-cream ")
3 One can also use his memory or the others'memory: conversations,
books, etc... (" I read that people were sometimes happy by watching tv,
and often they are bored... ")
4 One get from these experiments some conclusions (for example: " some
pleasure makes me happy, but not for a long time ")
5 One synthesizes these conclusions into a practical theory (" happiness
is a new or unexpected pleasure ")
6 One deduces from this theory new experiments which will be perhaps
more effective (for example: " maybe if I buy something with my eyes
closed, I would have an unexpected pleasure ")
And one starts again at stage 4 until being satisfied (for example "
it is to better to make the others happy than to buy with my eyes closed...
")
One thus obtained a theory which in practice can give good results.
By the way: I think that those who only want to make real experiments
and that those who only want to think of new theories are both wrong. Both
action and reflection are needed, and should be carried out together.
That's it... and let's work !