Eff the Logic

[DISCLAIMER]

Photo credit, fair use

Logic and Reason

When providing psychoeducational lessons to clients on Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I invite people to consider thinking which is rational (in accordance with both logic and reason). Perhaps it may be useful to define the terms which comprise this form of cognition.

“Logic” is a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. It also addresses the interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable.

“Reason” is a statement offered in explanation or justification. In simple terms, it’s the thing that makes some fact intelligible. Unlike what occurs with limited time in my sessions with clients, when teaching people about rational thinking through use of my blog I often use syllogisms.

Generally, a syllogism is comprised of a major premise, a minor premise, and a resulting conclusion. For the sake of argument and understanding, it’s inferred that both premises which lead to a conclusion are presumed to be true.

Bear in mind that the premises in an argument, proposition, or belief of this form will always lead to the conclusion. This is the case even when the premises aren’t actually true.

Equally, in order to be considered “rational” the argument, proposition, or belief empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. Otherwise, the proposed syllogism may simply follow logical form while not remaining in accord with reason. As an example:

Form (modus ponens) –

If it is true that p, then it is also true that q; p; therefore, q.

Broken down into its specific premises, this form of syllogism is as follows:

Premise 1: If it is true that p, then it is also true that q.

Premise 2: It is true that p.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is also true that q.

A simpler form of writing this type of syllogism is as follows:

If p, then q; p; therefore, q.

Example –

If you want to resolve the issue of wealth inequality, then do away with monetary systems altogether. You want to resolve the issue of wealth inequality. Therefore, do away with monetary systems altogether.

When discussing how beliefs are comprised, I find it useful to illustrate in my blog how one may arrive to an irrational conclusion such as the one proposing to do away with monetary systems altogether. Although logically consistent, this proposition isn’t reasonable.

To justify my position, I argue that (to my knowledge) no major nation state within the last century has operated – much less been able to advance – without a monetary system. Thus, the resolution to an issue (wealth inequality) cannot be more detrimental than the issue itself.

While I maintain that my logical and reasonable argument against the logical, though unreasonable, example of the aforementioned syllogism is sound (free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension), you may disagree. Besides, neither of us has perfect knowledge.

Likewise, neither of us has ownership of faultless truth (the body of real things, events, and facts existing without error). Also, it’s worth noting that it isn’t uncommon for only the major and minor premises of a modus ponens syllogism to be expressed, as only the major premise will do.

Eff the Logic

Rarely do I receive feedback on the content of my blog. Therefore, I remain uncertain as to whether or not an occasional reader understands how I illustrate the importance of logic and reason.

Additionally, because time in my client sessions is limited, I don’t have many opportunities to outline the composition of a belief structure as I have herein. Thus, I merely try to help people in my blog and in sessions to understand, believe in, and frequently practice the tenets of REBT.

In my free time, I enjoy practicing these principles through observation of social media content. Yesterday, I was delighted to witness part of a debate in which one interlocutor arrived to a position at which some of my clients also have during moments of unhelpful self-disturbance.

Discovering the rejection of logic in the wild, so to speak, two individuals debated personal responsibility and accountability (collectively “ownership”) versus shared ownership regarding males and females entering into parenthood. The following dialogue took place:

Person 1: You do believe that it is the case that men can’t force women to have their children?

Person 2: Correct.

Person 1: But women can force men to take care of their children?

Person 2: That’s correct.

Person 1: Okay. How is that fair?

Person 2: I’m not saying it’s fair.

Person 1: Okay. So then, what is the ins—so if men didn’t want to have that child, why should they be held to account, take care of it?

Person 2: Because it’s their child.

Person 1: What?

Person 2: Because it is their child!

Person 1: I’m super confused. But they didn’t have a say.

Person 2: Doesn’t matter. It’s their child.

Person 1: Should they be able to have a say?

Person 2: I don’t think so.

Person 1: But you just said it’s not fair.

Person 2: Yeah, it’s not fair. So what? They had a child. That’s their child. They should take care of it, not abandon it.

Person 1: So, okay. So, to get this right, then women should be able to kill [abort] men’s children if they want. Right?

Person 2: Stop framing it as killing.

Person 1: Or, hang on, or keep them if they want, and the man has to pay child support for the child?

Person 2: That’s correct.

Person 1: Right?

Person 2: That’s correct.

Person 1: And you think women should get to make that choice?

Person 2: A hundred percent.

Person 1: Why should we let women make that choice?

Person 2: Because they’re the ones that have to, you know, conceive.

Person 1: So, got it. So, they’re the ones who have to conceive?

Person 2: Mhhm.

Person 1: So, they’re the ones making the choice?

Person 2: Yep.

Person 1: So, therefore, it’s their responsibility. Anything else?

Person 2: No, because the father is also part of the responsibility.

Person 1: Wait! I’m sorry. Who’s making the choice?

Person 2: They can have the child, but the father should take care of their child! And you don’t disagree with that, do you?

Person 1: Wait.

Person 2: Do you disagree with that or not? Do you disagree—

Person 1: I can’t justify it from a secular angle.

Person 2: Why not?

Person 1: Because it makes no sense [it’s irrational] to me.

Person 2: It makes total sense. If you have a child, you should take care of it!

Person 1: Well, let’s try this again. I just walked you through the logic though.

Person 2: Fuck the logic! I’m asking you—

Person 1: “Fuck the logic,” what?

Person 2: Do you think a secular person should take care of the child that they have?

Person 1: Does a Christian think that? Of course.

Person 2: And you don’t think secular people do?

Person 1: Well, I can’t see how a secularist could justify it. No, not if you’re making the claim—so, you made the claim here—

Person 2: From my worldview, if you have a child, you should take care of it.

Person 1: Why?

Person 2: Period.

Person 1: Why?

Person 2: Because that’s my worldview.

Person 1: Why though?

Person 2: Because it’s your child.

Person 1: You are part of it.

Person 2: I don’t need to justify it for you!

Person 1: Because when we walk around the logic, here’s what we end up with. You say women have complete and total access, should be able to kill a man’s kid, right? Or should be able to bring it to bear and make sure that the man takes care of the kid, but the man can’t tell the woman that she has to have the kid—

Person 2: That’s right.

Person 1: —even when she’s pregnant, right?

Person 2: That’s correct. And if there’s a child in the world that that man contributed to, he should take care of it.

Person 1: Okay. So, just to make sure that we got this right, it’s an uneven standard for men versus women?

Person 2: Sure. If that’s the world we live in.

Person 1: So, justify why it is that men shouldn’t say, “Fuck that!”

Person 2: I don’t need to.

Person 1: Okay. Well then, when you ask me, “Andrew, don’t you think X?” And I say, well—

Person 2: And you say, “I can’t, from a secular point of view.”

Person 1: I say, from a secular point of view, I actually can’t answer the justification. Just remember that neither can you.

I was delightfully entertained when listening to the aforementioned verbal exchange yesterday. Still, I found it even more amusing today. I, too, have reached points within sessions when my use of the Socratic method resulted in a response, as one interlocutor stated, “Fuck the logic!”

Noteworthy, in a blogpost entitled Facts Don’t Care About Your Feelings, I stated, “Having taken speech class in high school, I learned that the purpose of debate is to persuade the undecided audience member and not the opposing side of an argument.”

Although I already maintained the perspective of person one in the referenced debate, I challenged myself to be open when listening, in order to change my mind. However, when a person emotionally declares “fuck the logic,” I remain unwilling to be persuaded by irrationality.

In specific, person two repeatedly deferred to using one of the four major irrational beliefs recognized in REBT known as demandingness. This illogical and unreasonable prescription occurs when demanding what should, must, or ought to be the case or not.

When person one disputed this unproductive belief, person two resorted to outright rejection of logic. Moreover, he eventually conceded that his “worldview” justified his use of this unaccommodating demand. This is an example of circular reasoning.

This process occurs when person two begins with what he’s trying to end with when presenting his argument. For instance, “I think women should have all the power when it comes to children.” Why? “Because I said so. It’s my worldview!” This isn’t a justified form of argument.

Then again, when one boldly declares “fuck the logic,” it’s likely that the individual isn’t open to having one’s mind changed. As is the case with clients and whoever stumbles across my blog, I simply accept this self-determined and autonomous perspective.

Besides, people are well within their inalienable rights to self-disturb if they so choose. Thus, I tend not to spend the relatively few precious moments remaining in life toward trying to persuade those who refuse to be influenced. “Fuck the logic?” Very well. Illogic likes it rough.

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.

At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

References:

Hollings, D. (2024, November 5). Abortion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/abortion

Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern

Hollings, D. (2024, October 29). Cognitive continuum. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-continuum

Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness

Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/description-vs-prescription

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2024, March 28). Distorted inferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distorted-inferences

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, October 25). Facts don’t care about your feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/facts-don-t-care-about-your-feelings

Hollings, D. (2025, March 9). Factual and counterfactual beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/factual-and-counterfactual-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1

Hollings, D. (2025, March 5). Five major characteristics of four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/five-major-characteristics-of-four-major-irrational-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2025, March 4). Justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/justification

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens

Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth

Hollings, D. (2022, November 7). Personal ownership. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-ownership

Hollings, D. (2023, March 20). Practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/practice

Hollings, D. (2025, May 3). Predictability of logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/predictability-of-logic

Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles

Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt

Hollings, D. (2024, January 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity

Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Self-determination and autonomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-determination-and-autonomy

Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought

Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism

Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2024, January 16). Understanding, belief, and practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/understanding-belief-and-practice

Hollings, D. (2023, October 10). When others don’t share your worldview. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/when-others-don-t-share-your-worldview

Uncyclopedia. (n.d.). UnScripts:The Symposium [Image]. Retrieved from https://uncyclopedia.com/wiki/UnScripts:The_Symposium

Whatever. (2025, May 15). Andrew Wilson vs. woke male feminist hater | Whatever debates #17 [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/live/5MBfBLg5xfU?si=_aA338tqZqnGyZ5r

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Circular reasoning. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Socratic method. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method