Skip to main content

Logical and Non-Logical Reasoning

Val offers his views on dogmatic aspects of cultural paradigm with its religious, political, and medical sterile indoctrinations and taboos.


When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion.

-- Dale Carnegie

What Do We Call "Logical Reasoning"?

Logic has been defined as a "proper or reasonable way of thinking and understanding something".

So it is the way we mentally process reality, relations, priorities, without our emotional preferences, or those spurred by beliefs that would affect our objective reasoning.

However, it is based upon our collective agreements about the true nature of reality, as perceived by our five senses -- limited as they may be, and unreliable as may be.

Besides, a general sense of what is logical and "real" has been changing from one cultural epoch to another, each coming up with claims generated by intellectual arrogance which tends to disallow new generations of thinkers to come up with some more plausible and accurate answers.

So, here we talk about dogma, whether in religion or in science that has picked up some of that spirit of religious dogma, as the proponents of "old schools" pretend to hold the bag with the ultimate truth.

Now, is it only a glitch in intellect to be ascribed to the past levels of human consciousness, when it was "logical" that our planet was "flat"? Not really. As we are about to see, this false "technology of reasoning" is still incredibly widespread -- whether among common folks, or those highly learned, or those in power.

In its extremes, our reasoning may either make some axiomatic -- not challengeable -- sense, or it's completely nonsensical.

However, as we are about to see, there is also something in between.

Something that appears as a well organized thought -- except that it isn't.

And that's what I am calling "non-logic", significant enough to be capitalized. In a moment, with some examples of non-logic, you are bound to immediately understand what I am talking about.

Then, you may also recognize how much of it is being used in politics, religion, as well as some dogmatic positionalities in science which are regularly spelling an intellectual favoritism.

But then, you will also have some fun with those extreme examples of non-logic where it appears most evident as a non-sequitur reasoning -- or the one where a part of the statement doesn't logically lead to another, even though it looks that way at the surface.

So, why not start with having some fun with presenting non-logic in humor, where logic is twisted into non-logic, while still appearing accurate at surface.


Human beings lose their logic in their vindictiveness.

-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Non-Logic -- Interwoven into the Very Fabric of Our Cultural Paradigm

Take for instance the following humorous anecdote where non-logic is shown in its extreme.

In order to demonstrate the harmful effect of alcohol, an Alcoholic Anonymous presenter picks a wiggling worm by tweezers and drops it into a glass container filled with alcohol. The worm instantly stops wiggling -- evidently dead.

Scroll to Continue

Now the lecturer asks the audience what that experiment was proving about the harmful effects of alcohol on the living tissues. Someone from the last row, with a bottle sticking out of his coat pocket, volunteers with his answer:

"What I saw there...hick! that if you drink...hick!... you won't have intestinal worms".

This little joke, as silly as it appears, clearly shows how we tend to arrange concepts into an order that suits us best, but still sounding "logical".

Let's give you another humorous one, before we get to a more serious aspects of the non-logic.

Two poor buddies, both hungry, add whatever money they could find in their pockets, and order a serving of fish in a restaurant. As their food is served, they notice one bigger and another smaller fish on the tray. Dude-One right away grabs the bigger fish and puts it on his plate, upon which the Dude-Two, protesting, asks:

"How could you take the big one?"

Dude-One: "Which one would you have taken?"

Dude-Two: "Of course, I would be a good friend and take the smaller one".

Dude-One: "Then, why are you complaining -- you got the smaller one."

As you can see, apparently nothing less than logical was in that answer, and yet, again, that reasoning was prompted by a personal interest.

This kind of reasoning is not only in domain of humorous twisted logic, but is also present in blind favoritism of voters during elections.

As voters are listening to the speeches by the two main candidates at elections, first of all they can't but be aware that those are not their words, but well prepared crap by experts in manipulating with masses. Those same cliches and phrases that have been proven to work well from election to election just get reused.

And even with that awareness, voters are facing two equally logical stories, because the candidates would never come up with something that would be some nonsense.

So the both are sounding equally reasonable -- at least so to approximately half of the populace -- as they are presenting themselves as the better person to solve all those burning domestic and international issues.

And yet, they are bound to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to all logicalness of one political careerist in favor of one whom they "like better".

What we, as voters are saying is, that to us, the presidential campaign is a popularity contest, not a public application for a job -- that it should be.

When a Miss Universe is elected, she happily goes home, her "job of impressing" is done. When a leader gets elected, he goes to do a job of leading a country -- and his job resume could have been done in one TV presentation, not in months of going from town to town, picking up some babies, smiling, and shaking hands -- none of which has anything to do with the requirements of his job.

Hey, folks, can we agree that running a country has nothing to do with someone's hair style, someone's size of his fingers, someone's wife's accent?

What happened to the public logicalness when we don't care if someone went bankrupt few times, talked disrespectfully about women, can't even read teleprompter.

Or when we don't care about someone's obvious bad temper, senility exposing itself in forgetfulness, confusion, mulled words and senseless sentences?

By what logic do we elect our leaders, if a good half of the populace is pissed about them for the next four years?

One told me how "everything bad ever said about her favorite political careerist has all been fabricated, untrue, staged, and even his personal TV appearances with his obvious bloopers and stupidities "doctored" with someone else's voice doing all that.

So much for political fanaticism, where all logicalness is hijacked by blind favoritism.


We live in the Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic.

-- David Russell

Sounding Smart -- Must Be Smart Enough to Be Trusted

Whether we are talking about a renowned scholar or an armchair philosopher, their delicacy seems to be asking -- and unfortunately also answering -- certain questions that don't have a logical answer.

They remind me of those medical scientists who had to label their diagnoses and pharmaceuticals with those ridiculously long and tongue-twisting names.

Who knows why.

Perhaps to make it all outlandishly inaccessible and mystified to an ordinary Joe, "sounding too smart" to be understood, and as such unconditionally trusted.

Like, to that ordinary Joe, the word "brain" is just fine enough, without being renamed into "encephalon", and the specialist for ear-throat-nose diseases didn't really need a name like otorhinolaryngologist.

Now how is that for fancy?

Likewise, philosophers will -- possibly unknowingly -- tackle some unanswerable questions making themselves ultra-smart, while they are just using a non-logic, by arranging some concepts in mismatching orders. Let me give you some examples.

Here is one of those "smart puzzles":

"What is the purpose of life?"

How many of you are finding nothing unusual about that question? O.K., how about an example that will show it to be based on non-logic. Like, I am perfectly capable of imagining a creature that's half-man and half-horse -- known as centaur in Greek mythology.

Now, yes, there is "man", and there is "horse" -- but as we know too well, there is no such a creature as "man-horse". Just the fact that I can imagine one, doesn't make it real.

Likewise, there is "purpose", and there is "life", but there is no "purpose of life".

And there is no "end of space", just because there is a usable concept of "end", and one of "space" -- whereas together they make no logical sense.

So, just because somebody or something sounds smart, it could be merely some crappy reasoning, and unless we snap out of the hypnotic box of our cultural paradigm, we are bound to use this false, twisted logicalness.

Someone said: "If you want to have a mind of a genius -- first make sure it's your own mind you are using."

It's been said that in our world "one thinks and hundreds just copy"

Maybe the beat example for that we can find in the non-logic of this passed (?) pandemic.

From the very start of it, it was logical that stress from high-pitched massive fearmongering, along with all useless but draconic restrictions -- was not helping at all, but was highly counterproductive, dramatically lowering people's immunity.

Doctors at the top knew about the effects of such massive stress, and yet they insisted on daily reports of all dead in the country and abroad.


Logically, to prime the scared-shitless people for accepting untested vaccines. These days, hospitals are allegedly being filled with fully vaccinated people; so, logically, vaccines only worked temporarily as a placebo effect, raising people's natural immunity.

"Too many budget-draining Baby Boomers in the world" -- sounds like a theme from a conspiracy theory, but somehow the False Logic had something that would contribute to such a theory.

You see, apparently all those folks in public homes were "spared from infection" by their families not being allowed to visit. But when we bring into equation of it the factor of fear, loneliness, despair, and few already existing heavier diagnoses befalling those poor souls, we must clearly see how that "protection" was killing many of them.

Even their last hope of having a decent funeral, should they need one, was lost, as authorities were forbidding religious procedures and minimizing the allowed number of funeral attendants.

It's totally incredible that so many people have been falling for the non-logic racket which filled the sacks with gold of the Big Pharma.

Presently, as the whole crap started to surface in that sewer of medico-pharmaceutical deceit, we can hear someone like Senator Rand Paul asking "how much the CDC doctors were receiving in royalties from the Big Pharma.

And guess what -- they bluntly refuse to answer, invoking their right not to answer anything that would incriminate them. Not denying, but not answering.

Like, where is the logic, sane reasoning, fairness to the public in any of it?

I am just waiting for some more people of Rand Paul's capacity to raise the question why some cheaper pills had not been invented for those who got infected at the very onset of pandemic -- while letting the rest of the world live a normal life -- instead of those untested vaccines which have the potential ability of messing with people's DNA.

The world has been duped into a devastating money raking racket, and its absence of logicalness is rapidly surfacing with more and more liberated voices around the globe.

If it never gets cleared, we might as well expect some more lab-created viruses to "accidentally" escape and call for -- you know what -- another global ordeal resulting with some astronomical profits.


Logic is in the eye of the logician.

-- Gloria Steinem

A Sufi Story Showing Brilliance of True Logicalness

Let the following story depict what logical mind can do when odds are against a favorable outcome.

A poor man with a gorgeous daughter owed a lot of money to a dishonest rich merchant, who at one point told him he would forgive his debt if his daughter would marry him.

As both, father and daughter protested such a dishonest proposition, she didn't want her father end in jail, so she agreed to the merchant's "fair" chance in a game that he was giving her to both, not marry him, and for her father going free from all debt.

So, to play that game, they came to the beach covered with mix of white and black pebbles. He quickly picked up two from the ground and put them in a sack; then said, if she would take a white one from the sack, she would win, and if it was a black one, she would have to marry him.

The smart girl knew that he took two black ones, so, after taking one in her clenched hand, she quickly dropped it on the ground where it immediately became unrecognizable amongst all others, saying:

"Oh, what a clumsy me! But it's not a problem; by the one that's still in the sack, we will know which one I picked."

So she went free from marrying the crook, and her father was free from paying him.

And with this Sufi story I am ending my own -- maybe making someone wonder, if just a little, how reliable and logical is our own reasoning after all.

© 2022 Val Karas

Related Articles