For many years, it deluded my mind. Someone told me there has to be more to life than logic. Through many years of analysis. I came to the conclusion that, it is impossible to understand illogical statements through a logical framework. They vary in nature. Since my computing notion is bound to logic. How can I become illogical? How can I study my illogical nature by its own nurture?

  • If one of the answers received satisfies you, please accept it :-) Commented Sep 21, 2023 at 15:07
  • Avoid mixing metaphysics (what is rational, what is ideal, like logic) with physics (life, sense experience, nature). Understanding logic is understanding an ideal order, a set of patterns. There is no sense or possibility of understanding "illogic". "How can I become illogical"? you do what is not logic, which will lead you to pain and death (e.g. smash your head against the wall expecting pleasure) (DO NOT DO IT!). Dying implies destroying reason and logic. But then you can't understand nothing, because your mind don´t exist anymore. Worst even, you don't exist anymore. Don't!
    – RodolfoAP
    Commented Sep 29, 2023 at 12:57

4 Answers 4


Logic is best understood as a tool used in service of desire. We know (more or less) what our situation is; we know (more or less) what we want; we know (more or less) the way the various pieces around us move. Logic is the act (or art) of manipulating those pieces to get things from where they are to where we want them to be,

There isn't a singular 'logic'. There are modes of logic that share some basic structural primitives, but otherwise function divergently. Whenever we see or hear something we think is illogical, it only means we haven't grasped the worldview that makes that thing logical.

You don't want to be illogical. You want to be trans-logical: to ee across a worldview, not try to assess things within your native worldview.


If someone says you should believe things to be true for reasons other than logic and empirical evidence... I'd suggest not putting much weight into what they say (at least not if you care about believing as many true things and as few false things as possible). Although of course you could also have a discussion about how they can justify and validate their belief, because logic and science has proven to do that through consistent and reliable results, whereas what people have presented as other reasons for belief has not shown to have any degree of consistency or reliability.

Logic can also be contrasted with emotion. We can't purely logical beings - we feel joy and sadness and happiness and pain and love, and many would say that those are some of the most important things in life. Logic, disregarding emotion, is ineffective at leading one to joy and happiness. Trying to logically analyse everything can put a strain on relationships. But logic can also be very helpful in finding joy and in relationships, if applied responsibly (e.g. it can help you identify things that bring short-term joy, but causes suffering on the long term, or it can help you identify things that damages relationships, so you can potentially stop doing that). But those would still be things that life offers that go beyond logic.

So I guess the question is whether you feel happy and fulfilled. If so, I'm not one to prescribe how you should life your life. If you aren't happy and fulfilled, you might want to reflect on what brings you joy, what a fulfilling life would look like for you, and what your ideal life circumstances would be in the long term. You might want to also consider speaking to a mental health professional, to help you with that process.


Illogic means reasoning or thought which is not logical. Logic and reason are basically, deductively the same. The basis of reason, however, is not reason. E.g. from Heidegger's The Principal of Reason (1957):

[p.11] In its short formulation [Leibniz's 1686] principle of reason reads: Nihil est sine ratione; nothing is without reason. ... Therefore, according to what the principle itself tells us, it is the sort of thing that must have a reason. What is the reason for the principle of reason?

[p.12] But what are we getting ourselves into if we take the principle of reason at its word and move towards the reason of reasons? Does not the reason of reasons press forward beyond itself to the reason of reason of reasons? If we persist in this sort of questioning, where can we find a respite and a perspective on reason? If thinking takes this path to reason, then surely it can't help but fall intractably into groundlessness.

[p.44] The subject of the principle of reason is not reason, rather: "Every being"; this is predicated as having a reason. The principle of reason is, according to the ordinary way of understanding it, not a statement about reason, but about beings, insofar as there are beings.

After much ado the principle of reason is revealed as a principle of being (note, not 'beings').

[p.51] Ground/reason and being ("are") the same—not equivalent—which already conveys the difference between the names "being" and "ground/reason". Being "is" in essence: ground/reason. Therefore being can never first have a ground/reason which would supposedly ground it. Accordingly, ground/reason is missing from being. Ground/reason remains at a remove from being. Being "is" the abyss [literally ab-grund = ground-less] in the sense of such a remaining-apart of reason from being. To the extent that being as such grounds, it remains groundless.

Cutting to my conclusion, reason itself (and likewise being), is without reason. Uncaused and groundless. And there is the link to illogic: without logic, without reason, without ground.

Switching to Heidegger's 1929 treatise On the Essence of Ground in Pathmarks, p. 132:

it has become clear with respect to the principle of reason [ground] that the "birthplace" of this principle lies neither in the essence of proposition nor in propositional truth, but in ontological truth, i.e., in transcendence itself. Freedom is the origin of the principle of reason [ground]; for in freedom, in the unity of excess and withdrawal, the grounding of things that develops and forms itself as ontological truth is grounded.


Transcendental signifieds are ungrounded, which makes this soundbite from literariness.org highlight an interesting point on logocentrism.

enter image description here

  • Is the claim reason is without reason to say that our freedom to choose is fundamental to its application and thus its nature?
    – J D
    Commented Sep 20, 2023 at 17:37
  • @JD perhaps this: freedom to be means it's without a wherefore. Commented Sep 20, 2023 at 19:32

Welcome Danish!

I would simply ask you to reflect on the idea that the logical is one aspect of the psychological. In philosophy, this position is related to the term psychologism. The human mind has other capacities other than logic. In fact, contemporary research tends to suggest that logic is impacted by bodily functions and that it is also susceptible to psychological factors and phenomena like cognitive bias.

You mention the term delusion. Delusion, for instance, might be seen as a systemic failure of logical consequence of the mind. Severe physical and mental abuse of children, for instance, results in profound affects on the medial prefrontal cortex and executive function associated with it. In effect, it is possible to make people unreasonable by traumatizing them or their emotions.

The somatic marker hypothesis is one example of an evidence-based hypothesis that suggests that logic, say the adoption of premises, which is a question of preference and not subject to a logic of its own necessarily, is determined by emotions. From WP:

The somatic marker hypothesis, formulated by Antonio Damasio and associated researchers, proposes that emotional processes guide (or bias) behavior, particularly decision-making.

This of course is consistent with the views of philosophers who explore rationality. Intuition plays an important and unavoidable role in logic. And if there's one finding that comes from psychology and logic that is afforded credence by practical experience, people struggle with being rational. As for exploring your own illogical thinking, both the philosophy of psychology and philosophy of mind have many ideas related to rationality and irrationality. Start with topics like fallacy, argumentation, reason, cognitive bias, and mental illness.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .