I wouldn't say opposites, but corresponding functions on the send and receive sides of communication. The 'opposite' of implication is the use of cut and dried statements designed to say just what they mean, neither more nor less. The opposite of inference is literal interpretation that confines itself to what is explicit only.

But regardless of how cut-and-dried one may seek to be, an "if" statement necessarily by logical structure implies a question, which must be answered to resolve the truth state of the conditional statement.

"Do you?" I assume you're now explicitly asking if I indeed 'think it better to live an irrationally illogical life.' As I indicated before, I must reject this this question, as it is loaded with the assumption that it is possible to lead a rationally logical life, and I think this assumption false. Some lives are more rational and logical than others, of course. A life devoid of reason and logic would face stark limitations that I, like almost everyone, would recognize as disadvantageous. Still, I also see disadvantages to endeavoring to banish the non-logical from one's life, since as I was saying, logic also has definite limitations.

Bottom line: I reject the dichotomy you posit between an irrational and illogical life, and a rational, logical one. I think actual lives must partake of both, with proportions varying among individuals. I see rationality and logic as being very useful, until one asks of them what they cannot offer, and then they often supply erroneous advice. But I infer that you are more adverse to the irrational and illogical than I am.