Q for Q.E.D

The basic under lying assumption for this proof is that you are in a relationship or care for someone a LOT.

Given :  You are in a relationship (if you aren’t already in one…)

To Prove :  A person can never be truly happy, unless he/she is selfish…
Proof :
Now, you want yourself and your partner/the person you care for to be happy, right? Is it possible for you to be happy when you know that the person you love, the person you cherish with everything in you, is not happy? Is not at ease? Feels lost?
Will it be possible for you to smile and keep a happy face, when you know that deep down, even if your significant other appears happy, they are upset about something?
Loving someone is a complex emotion, involving all possible hormones, all types of feelings, all possible chemical reactions… You’re happy when you see them, happy when they call or message, ecstatic when they hold your hand in their’s, have butterflies in your stomach when they make eye contact (at least in the initial stages), want to make love, have them hold on to you for ever….
You want to take care of them – as doing that makes you happy…
But, you know that your happiness depends on their well being, comfort and their frame of mind – basically their happiness. And theirs depends on yours. Its a vicious circle, I tell you.
So, coming back to the crux of the post – is one ever truly happy?
Until and unless the one you love is not (which again depends on whether you are happy or not, which again goes back to their happiness…. [cycle]^ infinity), it is practically impossible to be truly happy.
A mathematical expression that would best sum this up is :
Hu = [f(Hu) . f(Hp)]
where, Hu or Hp = C + A1.money + A2.friends + A3.power + A4.clothes + A5.recognition + A6.real estate + A7.family + A8.partner
where,  Hu = Happiness (yours)
Hp = Happiness (partners)
f(Hp) = function of your partner’s happiness
f(Hu) = function of your happiness
C, A1, A2, A3… = constants
Now, everyone has some amount of happiness, which is why Hu itself features in the equation…
Now Hu depends on many factors, including Hp, which is why the function is present in the first bracket. Hp depends on many factors again, and one of them is Hu.
And so on and so forth.
No one can be completely happy in life.
If you are, then you’re really a selfish person as you do not care about those close to you, as your happiness should depends on theirs (at least to some extent). ‘Coz if you have Hu and it is independent of Hp or family (ok, don’t get me started on that… the equation will spiral out of control), then you’re selfish, as you’re happy irrespective of whether they are happy, or comfortable, or whether they make you smile or not…
No one can be truly happy in life. If they are, they’re selfish…
Q.E.D.

– Written by Guest Writer: Sandhya Radhakrishnan as a run-up to my 2nd blogoversary.

4 thoughts on “Q for Q.E.D”

  2. no. but its kinda reassuring when it does 😉

    √<3 = ?

    p.s. im one of the few who have spent countless an hour on dusty green chalk boards trying to fit the Drake equation for domestic populations. and as i get older, my variables have gotten looser. and i cheat.

    Like

    1. I wonder y u must use an equation to make out that other ppl (even domestic) are extra terrestrial… aint the Green feelers a clue enuf??! (P.S. Green feelers may represent themselves as Kimonos and/or guys in skirts, but u get the point…)

      Like

  3. for dose who dun know,
    QED – quod erat demonstrandum (Latin = d thing which is 2 b proved)

    very primitive equation.. its not engg stuff.. its XIImaths(HSC) or X(CBSC)… outcome of engineers who end up doin MBA.. 😛
    however, its top level psychology experience, perhaps dat wld best suit for d native, afterall d native is a psychologist through her blog 😛

    In terms f control system, happiness is a function f urself (mayb d brain – d control system here)
    n all d variables used in d above equation only form d i/p-signal 2 d system

    Like

Comments are closed.

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑