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. Noteworthy, in a blogpost entitled Tautology, I stated:
A rhetorical tautology may be described as saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession). In other words, it’s superfluously redundant.
On the other hand, a logical tautology is a proposition that is always true, because it excludes no logical possibilities. Such statements provide nothing of value. For instance, “I’ll either make a salient point in this blogpost or I won’t.”
Quite often, I hear tautologies expressed by people who may think that they’re making salient points regarding justification for irrational beliefs when in fact they aren’t. Without further ado, I present examples of logical tautology forms so that you can understand what I mean:
Form (tautology 1) –
p is true is equivalent to p is true or p is true.
Example –
Proposition: Disputation is challenging is equivalent to disputation is challenging or disputation is challenging.
Stated differently: Disputation is challenging is equivalent to disputation is demanding or disputation is difficult.
Simplified tautology: Either disputation is demanding or it’s difficult.
Form (tautology 2) –
p is true is equivalent to p is true and p is true.
Example –
Proposition: Disputation is challenging is equivalent to disputation is challenging and disputation is challenging.
Stated differently: Disputation is challenging is equivalent to disputation is demanding and disputation is difficult.
Simplified tautology: Disputation is demanding and it’s difficult.
While not a syllogism, I find it valuable to illustrate how belief values don’t necessarily change when exchanging “and” (conjunction) or “or” (disjunction). Of course, not all tautological inferences use these terms (e.g., In my opinion, I think you’ll understand what I mean.).
Essentially, as a rule of inference, a tautology uses the rule of replacement regarding one term and another which are synonymous or which share the same meaning. Basically, a tautology is a repetitive proposition similar to stating, “It is what it is.” You either understand or don’t.
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.). Male doctor in protective suit [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/male-doctor-protective-suit_11556743.htm#fromView=search&page=4&position=25&uuid=a45ba187-6f64-4a0b-a8ae-b886ca8041b1&query=holding+chalkboard
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 16). Conjunction. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/conjunction
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. (2025, March 16). Disjunctive syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disjunctive-syllogism
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. (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. (2024, February 23). Tautology. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tautology
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. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Rule of replacement. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_replacement
Comments