When providing psychoeducational lessons about Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I often illustrate the relationship between logic and reason through use of syllogisms—a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and minor premise, and a conclusion.
For context, that which is considered rational is based on or in accordance with both logic and reason. Here, logic is a particular mode of reasoning viewed as either valid or faulty. As well, reason is merely a statement offered in explanation or justification (i.e., the logic follows).
Furthermore, stating that “logic follows” means that a syllogistic conclusion is reached based on a set of premises which are connected through reasoning that is sound—free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension, as a view about what is or isn’t sound may vary from the views of others.
Commonly, sound logic implies that the conclusion is a necessary outcome of the given information that adheres to the rules of logic. Essentially, suggesting that logic follows is an indication that if the premises are true, then the conclusion empirically must also be true.
However, if logic doesn’t adhere to syllogistic form, then it’s said not to follow. This is a notable consideration when teaching the tenets of REBT and how beliefs are formed, how they function, and the ways in which they influence cognitive, emotive, sensational, and behavioral outcomes.
Regarding the rule of syllogism, there are three parts involved which relate to a conditional arguments, categorical propositions, or disjunctive proposals. Forming this connective stance is a hypothesis—an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument.
In particular, the hypothesis is the conditional statement that follows after the word “if.” Thereafter, the inference—a conclusion or opinion that is formed, because of known facts or evidence—follows after the word “then” (i.e., if […], then […]).
Representing each phrase of the conditional, categorical, or disjunctive statement is a letter or variable (e.g., x). Generally, syllogisms are arguments which usually propose two statements (“premises”). There’s a major and minor premise, and a resulting conclusion.
The major premise expresses a general point while a minor premise puts forth a particular argument. Based on both statements, a conclusion is the final product of the proposition. Bear in mind that simply because an argument follows logical form doesn’t mean that it is reasonable.
This is why I find utility in illustrating syllogisms when practicing REBT. Often, a person’s proposition, argument, thought, or belief which is based on logical form doesn’t necessarily result in a well-justified explanation that relates to rationality.
Admittedly, my approach to syllogistic use in REBT doesn’t delve too deeply into equivalence modes or mathematical formulations where are associated with formal logic. Rather, I merely seek to introduce people to descriptive formulas which underpin beliefs.
This is done in respect to assessing for beliefs which are irrational—those which aren’t in accordance with both logic and reason. It’s worth noting that not all irrational beliefs are self-disturbing propositions.
For instance, person X may genuinely believe that the Earth isn’t spherical. All the same, simply because other individuals disagree with person X, he doesn’t upset himself about their differing attitudes. Instead, person X merely shrugs off the difference in opinion and carries on with life.
Noteworthy, there are four major irrational beliefs and five major characteristics of these self-disturbing assumptions recognized in REBT theory:
Irrational beliefs –
1. Global evaluation – “Life isn’t worth living if I’m not accepted by other people.”
2. Low frustration tolerance – “I can’t stand not being accepted by other people.”
3. Awfulizing – “It would be awful if I weren’t accepted by other people.”
4. Demandingness – “I must be accepted by other people.”
Characteristics –
1. Rigid or extreme
2. Conducive to psychological disturbance and impaired interpersonal relationships
3. Unhelpful to you as you strive towards your goals
4. False
5. Illogical
It’s with this understanding that I advocate use of syllogistic practice when disputing irrational beliefs, as this is a core component of the ABC model that is associated with REBT. Therefore, without further ado, I present an example of the following logical form:
Form (law of excluded middle) –
p or not p is true.
Example –
Proposition: You will practice REBT routinely or you will not practice REBT routinely.
Notice that this proposition excludes a middle, or minor premise, as it leaves only a major premise which asserts a conclusion. According to one source:
In logic, the law of excluded middle or the principle of excluded middle states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true. It is one of the three laws of thought, along with the law of noncontradiction, and the law of identity; however, no system of logic is built on just these laws, and none of these laws provides inference rules, such as modus ponens or De Morgan’s laws.
Essentially, the law of the excluded middle asserts that for any proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true, and there’s no middle ground; the assertion is either true or false. This can be difficult to understand when interacting with people who reject objective truth.
Regarding syllogisms, the law of excluded middle ensures that every statement has a definite truth value, either true or false, and that there’s no in-between. This is a challenging matter for those individuals who also reject the concept of objective reality.
In any case, I find it useful to understand that there are binary options in life. This, I maintain even though I tend to give at least a third option to dichotomous perspectives. Ultimately, you’ll either routinely practice REBT or you won’t, just as a woman is either pregnant or she’s not.
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
Photo credit (edited), fair use
References:
8photo. (n.d.). Female chef in white uniform holding blackboard and looking serious [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/female-chef-white-uniform-holding-blackboard-looking-serious_10427004.htm#from_element=detail_alsolike
CueMath. (n.d.). Law of syllogism. Retrieved from https://www.cuemath.com/data/law-of-syllogism/
Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions
Hollings, D. (2024, August 7). Awfulizing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/awfulizing
Hollings, D. (2024, October 29). Cognitive continuum. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-continuum
Hollings, D. (2025, March 17). De Morgan’s theorem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/de-morgan-s-theorem
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs
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. (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. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/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. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (2024, April 13). Goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/goals
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
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, February 5). Logically inconsistent. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logically-inconsistent
Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance
Hollings, D. (2024, October 5). Mistaking deductive validity for truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mistaking-deductive-validity-for-truth
Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens
Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude
Hollings, D. (2024, June 2). Nonadaptive behavior. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/nonadaptive-behavior
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, November 18). Opinions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/opinions
Hollings, D. (2023, March 20). Practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/practice
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, December 5). Reasoning. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reasoning
Hollings, D. (2024, March 14). REBT and emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-and-emotions
Hollings, D. (2024, January 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
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. (2022, November 14). Touching a false dichotomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/touching-a-false-dichotomy
Hollings, D. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Law of excluded middle. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Law of identity. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Law of noncontradiction. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Law of thought. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#The_three_traditional_laws
Comments