Mistaking “I Can’t Do Great Things” for “I Can’t Do Anything”
We often realize that there are many things we cannot do. However, by worrying about what we cannot do, we forget what we can do.
The fact that we cannot accomplish “great things” leads us to convince ourselves of the “story” that we, therefore, cannot even manage the small, simple things that are within our reach.
Since we can’t do “great things,” we convince ourselves that we also cannot do small, simple things, either – so we end up doing nothing at all.
Unable, for example, to fulfill the “story” of saving the world, we tell ourselves the “story” that we cannot even carry out simple everyday actions in support of small causes close to us.
When we measure what we could do against what we could never do – end war, cure cancer, bring peace to the world, end disease – we may end up convincing ourselves that we cannot do anything at all. We then stop trying to do even the small things.
Because of the “story” that we cannot do “great things,” we end up not even doing the small things that are actually within our reach.
However, being unable to do “great things” does not mean we cannot do small things.
In reality, there are many small things we can do, even sharing a piece of bread with a pigeon. Whoever you are, even if you are a homeless person, there is always something small that you can do. Many years ago, I saw a homeless person in Milan digging through the trash for food. I thought he was looking for something to eat for himself, but he was looking for scraps to give to hungry pigeons. It was a small thing – but to the pigeon, it made a huge difference.
No matter how little you have, and no matter how low you feel you have fallen – even if you are homeless and have nothing – you can always do something small for others.
Regret and the Failure to Do What We Could Have Done
In the future, however, we will regret the small things we did not do and could have done, whereas we will not regret the “big things” we were unable to do.
Regret comes from failing to do what we could have done.
We cannot do most “big things” like cure diseases or stop crime because they require more resources, time, and power than we have. But we can do a lot of small things, like bringing a meal to a neighbor who is hungry, or mowing the yard of an elderly person. All we have to do is choose to do it.
Regret comes from failing to do what we could have done, therefore:
We will not regret not doing the big things, because we could never have done them in the first place.
We will regret not doing the small things, because we could actually have done them.
When we become aware of this dynamic, we no longer fall into the trap of neglecting small things simply because we cannot accomplish the “big things.”
What can we do to improve the world?
The answer is almost nothing – but it’s not nothing, it’s almost nothing. This “almost” makes all the difference, because there is an immense difference between doing almost nothing and doing nothing.
So, yes, we can do almost nothing, but that’s completely different than doing nothing. We can do this “almost.”
For example, imagine a beach covered with starfish stranded there by a big wave. Unless they get back in the water, they will die. A boy picks up one starfish after another and throws them back in the water. Another person approaches and says, “You’re wasting your time. It won’t make a difference because you’ll never save all of them.”
The boy holds up a starfish and says, “It makes a difference to this one.”
Every “small” act makes a difference. It may not affect everyone, but it will affect the one who is being helped – the receiver – and that’s what matters to the person who is being helped.
From the perspective of the ego who wants to “save the world,” one small act does not make any difference. But from the perspective of the individual who benefits from that one small act, it means everything.
The Perspective of the Giver Versus the Perspective of the Receiver
The perspective of the giver is very different from the perspective of the receiver.
The giver may consider doing something “good” for someone else and then ask, “Is it big enough for me?” This question is asked from a perspective of selfishness: “Is it big enough to satisfy my ego?” or “Is this thing so small that doing it will not inflate my ego in any way?” The giver is asking if the act satisfies his ego enough in order to do the effort required.
But if the giver was seeing the act from the perspective of the recipient instead of from the perspective of his own ego, the giver would instead ask, “How much of a difference will this make for the recipient?” There would be no ego involved, just a question of how much “good” the giver can do for the recipient.
Paradoxically, the giver may only do “big things” because he needs to do a “big thing” in order to satisfy his ego. If the giver does not do “small things” because he believes he should focus only on “big things,” he is clearly doing it only for his own ego, not for the recipient.
When the giver perceives some action as “small” the giver may question whether it is worth doing it at all. This is the “lazy path”: The giver feels the act has too little impact on his own ego, so it’s not worth the small effort, but this is because the giver views the action only from the perspective of his own ego. The giver feels that “If I cannot make a big difference, then why bother to do anything?”
From the perspective of the giver, an action may seem very “small.” But from the perspective of the receiver, it can be very “big.” It may be “small” to the giver from the perspective of his ego, but it could make a huge difference for the receiver.
For example, giving a sandwich to a hungry person seems like a very “small thing” to the giver. But to the receiver, it could have a great impact.
You probably cannot change the whole world, but you can change someone’s world – because, from the perspective of the recipient, you actually are changing the world: their world. If someone is hungry and you are feeding them, you are effectively changing the world. Every time you help with “small” things you see every day, that may make a huge difference for the recipients of each “small” thing.
A few years ago, I was in Argentina. I saw a man standing outside a pharmacy. He wasn’t a beggar, just a person on the street. He stopped me and explained that he needed medicine but was a few hundred pesos (two or three dollars) short. He showed me his empty bottle of medicine. So I gave him what he needed, and this made him very happy and very relieved. I assume it made a big difference for him, because it was important enough that he was stopping a stranger to ask for help.
Did I change the world? No. Did I end poverty in Argentina? Of course not. But this small act was very significant for this man.
From the perspective of the ego of the giver, small things mean next to nothing. But from the perspective of the individual who receives the kindness of the giver, it means the world.
Nice article 👍
This is why the majority of Americans let this cretin get into office.