​Back in the 1980s, I came across a Trinity Review, "The Virtue of Name-Calling" by John Robbins. I do not recall how it came into my possession. I may have subscribed to the Trinity Foundation’s newsletter and then subsequently began receiving Reviews, this one being the first of many. I do recall sharing it with one of the ministers of a local non-denominational (at that time) congregation where we worshipped for a time. The minister’s reaction upon reading the Review in my presence was one of instant interest and mild surprise. Apparently, he was not familiar with the Trinity Foundation’s John Robbins or the Foundation's publications.
​
The reason I mention this much is that this minister’s reaction was very much like my own. My own interest was Robbins’ appeal to logic’s good and necessary consequences on behalf of Truth, and the Christian’s obligation to witness to the Truth. If Truth, not merely the search for Truth, but Revealed Truth Study as premises requires the good and necessary consequence of a conclusion that names a well-known theologian a liar when he contradicts the plain teaching of the Scriptures, then according to Robbins, it is not wrong or a sin to call such person a liar or a fool. Robbins supports "name-calling" with numerous passages of Scripture that show it to be a sound practice, even a virtue, to label someone with an unpleasant but appropriate name when an examination of that person’s theology contradicts the Scripture’s truths.

​Misology's Legacy
​John Robbins in his incisive "The Crisis of Our Time," an essay that appears at the end of every book published by Trinity Foundation, names the 20th Century as the Age of Irrationalism, the legacy of misology’s hatred, hostility, and rejection of logic. He believed that irrationalism (anti-intellectualism) controls our entire culture. His research convinced him that "Contemporary …intellectuals are anti-intellectual. Contemporary philosophers are anti-philosophy. Contemporary theologians are anti-theology." (John Robbins' The Trinity Manifesto, p.1.)

Nonsense Has Come
The irrationalism of the present age is so thoroughgoing and pervasive that even the Remnant…has accepted much of it. … In some circles, this irrationalism has become synonymous with piety and humility, and those who oppose it are denounced as rationalists – as though to be logical were a sin. Our contemporary anti-theologians make a contradiction and call it a Mystery. The faithful ask for truth and given Paradox. If any balk at swallowing the absurdities of the anti-theologians, they are frequently marked as heretics or schismatics who seek to act independently of God.
​There is no greater threat facing the true church of Christ … than the irrationalism that now controls our entire culture. …Hedonism, the popular philosophy of America, is not to be feared so much as the belief that logic – that "mere human logic," to use the irrationalists’ own phrase – is futile. The attacks on truth, on revelation, on the intellect, and on logic are renewed daily.  But note well:  The misologists …use logic to demonstrate the futility of logic.  The anti-intellectuals construct intricate intellectual arguments to prove the insufficiency of the intellect. The anti-theologians use the revealed Word of God to show that there can be no revealed Word of God – or that if there could, it would remain impenetrable darkness and Mystery to our finite minds. (Robbins, The Trinity Manifesto-A Program for Our Time)

The Result?
As the author of the The Closing of the American Mind reports: most students believe that truth is relative.
There are no absolutes, no universal truths of any kind. What is true for one may be false for another. And the reverse may be the case tomorrow, or the next day, week, month, or year. The statement itself, namely, that there are no absolutes, no universal truths of any kind is not an absolute, not a universal truth. Is it true that there are no truths? (If it is true, then it is false.) The statement is true for one, false for another, and this may reverse itself tomorrow. There is no contradiction, for there is no Law of Contradiction. If these propositions reduce to nonsense, so be it.

Thus "reasons" the relativist-misologist of our time. In his desire to suppress truth, all truth, he yields to nonsense. In so choosing, he seeks to escape all accountability to his Creator, denies all responsibility, and avoids all reasoned argument or explanation for or against any claim or position. He floats in a sea of ambiguity, restless, confused, and miserable. In his pride, he casts off all seriousness with "If this be self-deception, so be it."

Of course, no person lives in accordance with this axiom. As a practical matter, the misologist lives as if logic is necessary with premises that function as universal truths.  He seeks to communicate his claims in propositions, meanings that convey truth and reason. Indeed, he realizes that no society can function on the absurd notion that all truth is relative. So he seeks an interpretation that avoids all talk of absolutes but falls short of nonsense.
​
He creates a virtual reality "as-if-world." Our misologist behaves as if all truth is relative using some statements as "benchmarks." According to this view, what is true is what most people in a society agree to treat as a benchmark for decision, action, behavior, or choice. Thus if the consensus establishes a benchmark-statement that stealing money from a bank is a crime, then any statement that denies this benchmark-statement is considered false - by consensus. Truth remains relative in origin and status, relative to the consensus and dodges any claim to universality. Any consensus-benchmark may change as society evolves, mutates, or decides to change.

Meaning?
The notion that a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence is banished, or so it is claimed. Meanings do not come in packets (subjects and predicates) of truth or falsity according to notions of correspondence or coherence, or a process of discovery, or revelation. Gone are the problems of determining when or how something corresponds to reality. Whose reality? What reality? Coherence suffers a similar fate, for the test of coherence establishes nothing. And if the axioms are not universal, the system of coherence itself is relative. To "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God" is mere ritual lingo for telling a story as I see it or as someone else imagines.

One wonders how a detective can solve any crime given these presuppositions.
Of course, if everything is indeed meaningless, how could anyone know that it is? For if meaninglessness is the end product of all thought and life, and nothing truthful can be known about reality and existence, how could anyone discover this fact? Meaninglessness banishes not only all truths but all knowledge, including the knowledge of a meaningless life.

With Irrationalism, nonsense has come. Moreover, it cannot pause to reason or construct hypotheses to test its presuppositions. For mere human reason (logic) is futile; there is nothing to falsify. What remains is the celebration of an old philosophy: eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. The 21st Century will be named the Age of Hedonistic-Nihilism, for passive nihilism seeks to rest in the exhaustion of pleasure as a substitute for the nihilism’s end point: suicide.

Not only has nonsense come but ushers in an Age of Insanity.
1. If all is meaningless, then all propositions are nonsense.
2. All is meaningless; there is no meaning.
3. .:.  All propositions are nonsense. (Including this one.)

But note: no misologist, a true believer of his own axioms of meaningless in life and reality, would or could argue as above. The misologist is robbed of any argument and is left to live and die in "…madness and blindness and confusion of heart." (Deuteronomy 28:28)

What is "anti-logic?"
The term denotes a class of haters -- those who hate logic.
There is another term for this condition: Misology.
​Definition: Misology is the fear, distrust or simply hatred of reason; a hatred of argument, reasoning, or enlightenment.
Origin of MISOLOGY: Greek misologia, from misein+ -logia –logy. First Known Use: 1833. Known As: anti-intellectualism.
Misology is a hatred of logic. An investigation into the hate-logic-disorder is a topic for more than a few posts. In this post, we focus briefly on the consequence for an individual and society. Stated plainly, the consequence is:

Nonsense.
"Those who call for Nonsense will find that it comes." (Lewis, C. S., That Hideous Strength, 1965, p. 42)
"Nonsense," of course, means "no-sense," or no meaning, meaninglessness. And if uttered or given expression, it issues in gibberish, goobledegook, bafflegab, or some other strain of nonsense. The written expression of nonsense may be found in the language of the scholar, academic, professor, theologian, or preacher. Whether uttered by the educated or non-educated thinker, it is and remains nonsense.
Examples abound, but to summarize its essential characteristics, it consists of contradictions, evasions, straw-man arguments, flattery, deceptive complex questions, or “paradoxes”. This is not an exhaustive list of characteristics; deception is a deep ocean. (Jeremiah 17:9)
​
Logic Law of Non-Contradiction
This much is clear: any language that consists of contradictions, violating the logic law of contradiction (Not both A and Not-A) is not and cannot be anything other than a lie, a falsehood. To believe a contradiction is one definition of “stupidity”. Men believe falsehoods about all sorts of things. This tendency to believe what is false is the key idea in commercials, many films, propaganda, ideologies, cults, politics, and religions (not to mention, gossip, rumor, slander, etc.). (Note: By falsehoods here, we mean logical contradictions.)

Repetition of a logical contradiction has the psychological effect of clothing it in the coziness of familiarity and leads to, if not belief, the suspension of disbelief in the face of meaningless scribblings or irrational utterances. Thus, "those who call for Nonsense will find that it comes."

Perhaps the following bit of linguistic gibberish will illustrate some of its important elements: How to Achieve Happiness.

An Illustration
Assume, for the sake illustration, that someone offers a Free Workshop on Happiness, conducted by a Trained, Certified, Licensed, Experienced Motivational Expert in Behavior Modification, with Graduate Degrees in Psychology, Philosophy of Religion, Divinity, Counseling, Education, and Metaphysics.
_____
Here is the Commercial.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have nothing to sell. You do not have to believe a word I say or write. I invite you to check out my facts, facts based on scientific evidence, well documented in scientific journals and in many reputable college textbooks. Scientific facts are facts based on observation in controlled settings of laboratories or research centers using the strict, objective criteria of the scientific method. If you object to the findings of science, or dispute its discoveries, you will have to go elsewhere or seek someone else to settle the matter. My purpose here and now is not to settle a controversy anyone may have with science, or scientific fact, or the scientific method. I’m here to explain how one may achieve happiness in the midst of cruel, often unjust, painful incidents and circumstances that chance, mere chance (some would say “bad luck”) visits on not a few of us or those dear to us. In other words, I’m here to tell you how I achieved happiness and maintain a happy attitude in the face of many obstacles as a model for you to follow or adapt to your own particular style and situation. If you are interested in the research that validates the model of happiness I will propose this day, please feel free to purchase any of the publications, booklets, and CD’s at the back of the room -- discounted 50% this day only for those in attendance.
_____
In an interview with this imagined Seminar Instructor, let us assume that he offers the following in response to questions about the origin and history of the seminar.
_____
I struggled to invent an appropriate title for my model of behavior modification. At first, I thought to name it “Positive vs Negative Power Thinking.”  I thought this too long a title, plus there was already a model called “The Power of Positive Thinking” that flourished among the religious for a time then faded. I did not want my model to be associated with failures. I thought also that a name that motivates self-transformation would be more attractive as well as more persuasive to the skeptic. Finally, after much thought, and several survey research polls, I settled on The Power of Paradox: How to Transform your Thought and Life by and through Paradox. (PoP)
_____
The commercial continues:
_____
Now most think of contradictions as something to be avoided, judged, chastised, or corrected -- forgetting that contradictions are ubiquitous and often times found to be useful. I know many of you have used contradictions to make others feel better about themselves perhaps in an embarrassing or difficult situation. We use contradictions to create memorable, happy experiences for our children during the Holiday Seasons of Christmas, Easter, and so forth. We lie to our children to make them happy, don’t we? And they are happy because they believe the lie. Suppose belief in a contradiction cured cancer. Your spouse, child, friend, or a neighbor has cancer. You want that person to be happy. If he believes a lie about a miraculous cure for cancer found only in the jungles of Peru (but available now in a local store) and thereby creates a measure of hope and happiness in his otherwise terminal state, would you not lie deliberately i.e., communicate a false, always false, proposition about the cure? You may wonder at the power of paradox (contradiction) to achieve anything like hope and happiness. If you do, you underestimate it. Precisely, the psychological desire for these desired states or conditions is the key element in the Power of Paradox Model to achieve human happiness.
_____
The Noble Lie?
The commercial and purpose sound like a commendable effort to achieve human happiness.
Those who seek nonsense will find and embrace it provided it promises them meaning and hope, i.e., something to believe in wholeheartedly. However, how can meaninglessness (nonsense) provide meaning, much less true meaning?
Belief in a paradox may be a source for hope but not a basis true meaning about anything including happiness.
Paradox means quite simply "a belief in contradictions."
Perhaps the reader of this post will identify or detect other examples of nonsense in the illustration?
_____​
Permission granted to copy and distribute Blogic Posts as handouts for classroom teaching or group discussions provided material is not sold, not included in a book or syllabus, not edited or revised in any manner, and copyright credit and source acknowledged.

SYLLOGISM
​What is a syllogism, or a categorical syllogism, or a syllogistic argument?
Encyclopedias have long sections on the term. Gordon Clark’s definition from the Glossary of his Logic is a good one.
Syllogism – An argument composed of two premises and a conclusion, with the predicate of the conclusion in one, the subject of the conclusion in the other, and a third term in the two premises. (Logic, Glossary, PB, p.123)

The syllogism’s elements consist of three and only three propositions. Two of the propositions are reasons (premises) in support of the third proposition, the conclusion. These propositions share three terms in a definite arrangement.

The subject of the conclusion of the argument is the minor term, the predicate of the same proposition is the major term, and the middle term is in both premises but never in the conclusion.
The premise with the predicate term of the conclusion is the major premise.
The premise with the minor term, either as subject or predicate, is the minor premise.

A syllogism has 3 propositions: the major premise, placed 1st, the minor premise, placed 2nd, and the conclusion (placed 3rd).

• The major term located in the major premise and in the conclusion (the conclusion’s predicate term). 
• The minor term is located in the minor premise and in the conclusion (the conclusion’s subject term).
• The middle term is located in the major premise and the minor premise, never in the conclusion.

Dr. John W. Robbins' excellent essay on why one should study logic may be accessed by clicking on his link in the Resources side bar. His essay is worth separate treatment in a future blog for it is an example of Dr. Robbins' brilliant, clear thinking and writing on a subject that is denigrated throughout academia and public schools. This brief post, owing much to Dr. Robbins' essay, is an abbreviated version of the Preview Page of The Logic Classroom.
Why Study Logic?
FIRST
To the question what is more basic than the three R’s of Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic, we answer THOUGHT. To engage in any one of the three activities, you must think! Thinking, correctly done, follows rules. We think incorrectly, when we neglect those rules.  The rules for correct thinking and methods for avoiding mistakes in reasoning belong to the subject of logic.
​SECOND
The study of logic trains the mind to distinguish logical from emotional (psychological) appeals, which may be offered in support of a conclusion or a position. To opt for a course of action by confusing an emotional appeal with a logical appeal is to fall victim to incorrect thinking. It is a fallacy to accept an emotional inference as a necessary inference. Logic is the irreplaceable means for correct thinking and avoiding fallacious reasoning.
THIRD
The structure of man’s mind is the same as his Creator’s. God is not insane; He is a rational being, and the structure of God’s mind is logic. For these reasons, we say not only that logic is irreplaceable and universal, but logic is necessary and fixed. It is not one scheme of things among others. It is not optional. Man’s mind was formed on the principles of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction.
To repeat.
Three reasons for the study of logic are:

• Correct thinking requires it;
• Discerning minds necessarily depend on it; and
• Man is a rational being created in the image of his Creator.

As described in the previous post, Logic is the study of necessary inference. Its elements are propositions that form arguments. A proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. An argument is composed of propositions some of which are premises and one of which is the conclusion. Premises are reasons given to support the conclusion of an argument or a position. Arguments are classified as either inductive or deductive. With Deductive Argument, we ask: "Does this conclusion follow as a necessary consequence from these premises?" If the answer is affirmative, the Deductive Argument is valid; otherwise, the argument is invalid. Deductive Arguments are either valid or invalid. If the argument is not invalid, then it is valid. If the argument is not valid, then it is invalid.

Logic is Universal, Necessary, and Irreplaceable.
Man’s mind was formed on the principles of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction. These three laws or principles are the basis for all intelligible thought. Without them, all rational discourse vanishes. (Upcoming: Blogic Post on the Laws of Logic.)

​Dr. John W. Robbins' excellent essay on why one should study logic may be accessed by searching The Trinity Foundation web page. His essay is worth separate treatment in a future blog for it is an example of Dr. Robbins' brilliant, clear thinking and writing on a subject that is denigrated throughout academia and public schools. This brief post, owing much to Dr. Robbins' essay, is an abbreviated version of the Preview Page of The Logic Classroom.
Why Study Logic?
FIRST
To the question what is more basic than the three R’s of Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic, we answer THOUGHT. To engage in any one of the three activities, you must think! Thinking, correctly done, follows rules. We think incorrectly, when we neglect those rules.  The rules for correct thinking and methods for avoiding mistakes in reasoning belong to the subject of logic.

Logic is the science of necessary inference. An inference is the drawing of a conclusion from premises by logical methods. The adjective "necessary" in necessary inference or necessary consequence means that the conclusion is inescapable. An argument consists of one or more propositions in support of another proposition. The propositions in support of the other proposition are premises; the proposition supported by the other propositions is the conclusion. The familiar argument about Socrates illustrates the relation between premises and conclusion in deductive argument.

1. All Men are Mortal.
2. Socrates is a Man.
3. .:. Socrates is Mortal.

The last proposition, the conclusion, is supported by the conjunction of the first two propositions, the premises.

John Robbins wrote in a Trinity Review: