Michael Mitchell: Archive

How the fuck are you a professional psychologist and overthink the word "it"?

"It is what it is" is not an ambiguous statement. It (the statement) literally means the opposite of ambiguousness. You can say it (the statement) with a shrug, as if you don't give a shit, but it's (saying the statement is) not renunciation, it's (saying the statement is) acceptance. The meaning of the word "it' may be dynamic, fluid, but the meaning of whatever "it" refers to is fixed, static.

The word "it" is a pronoun. Its (the word's) meaning changes depending on what it (the word) refers to, because pronouns take the place of nouns. "Tree" refers to trees. "Table" refers to tables. "Person" refers to individual human beings. "It" can refer to any one of these things.

So when you say "it is what it is", you mean a tree is a tree, a table is a table, a person is a person. What "it" refers to is irrelevant to the meaning of the statement, whether you define the context or not. It (the statement) is simply the acceptance of reality, not its (reality's) vagueness, but its (reality's) exactness, its (reality's) absolutism.

Imagine if "it" changed meanings here, in the context of this statement, if both instances of the word referred to different things. "A tree is what a table is." "A table is what a person is." "A person is what a tree is." If you allow the meanings of both "it's" to be different, the statement loses its (the statement's) meaning. It (the statement) doesn't become ambiguous. It (the statement) becomes absurd.

In mathematical terms, the word "it" is a variable. The meaning of the word changes contextually, but whatever it (the word) refers to in a given context, that's what it (the word) means in that context, nothing more and nothing less. "A tree is what a tree is." "A table is what a table is." "A person is what a person is." The word "it" can mean what "tree" means or what "table" means or what "person" means.

Therefore, when you use the statement "it is what it is", you're not being vague or approximate or dismissing reality as unknowable or irrelevant, you're accepting its (reality's) absolutism, emphasizing it (reality's absolutism) even.

You don't have to know what "it" refers to in the statement in order to know that whatever it (whatever "it" refers to) is, that's what it (whatever "it" refers to) is.

🙂