You've probably heard it in a courtroom drama or a high-brow lecture. In and of itself. It sounds fancy. It feels like something a philosophy professor would say while staring pensively out a window at a rainy courtyard. But honestly? Most people use it as filler. They toss it into sentences to sound more authoritative, like a verbal blazer you put on to look professional.
But there is a real, distinct meaning here.
When we talk about something in and of itself, we’re stripping away the context. We are looking at a thing in a vacuum. If you say a car is beautiful in and of itself, you aren't talking about how fast it goes or who owns it. You're talking about the lines of the metal and the curve of the glass. Just that. Nothing else. It’s a way of isolating the essence of an object or an idea from the consequences it produces.
The Problem With Modern Usage
Language changes. It’s messy. Sometimes, people use "in and of itself" when they really just mean "intrinsically" or "basically." That’s fine for casual coffee shop talk. However, in formal logic or legal writing, the nuance actually matters.
Take a look at how Immanuel Kant used it. He didn't just use it to sound smart. He was obsessed with the ding an sich—the "thing in itself." Kant argued that we can never truly know an object in and of itself because our brains automatically filter everything through our own senses and biases. We see the "phenomena," not the "noumena."
Basically, you see a red apple. But is the apple "red" in and of itself? Or is it just reflecting light in a way your human eyes interpret as red? It’s a trip.
If you're writing a legal brief or a technical paper, misusing this phrase can actually weaken your argument. It suggests a level of precision you might not actually be hitting. If a piece of evidence is "incriminating in and of itself," it means you don't need any other testimony to prove guilt. The evidence stands alone. If it needs a "story" to make it work, it isn't incriminating in and of itself.
Does It Even Matter Anymore?
Some linguists think these kinds of phrases are dying out. They’re "wordy." They add syllables without adding much "signal."
In a world of TikTok captions and 280-character limits, "in and of itself" feels like a relic. It’s slow. It’s deliberate. Yet, we still reach for it when we want to emphasize that a specific action was wrong, regardless of the outcome. Think about an ethical dilemma. Is lying wrong in and of itself?
- Deontologists (like Kant) would say yes. The act is the problem.
- Utilitarians would say no. They care about the result.
This isn't just academic fluff. It’s how we judge people. If your friend lets a secret slip, you might be mad at the act of betrayal in and of itself, even if no harm actually came from it. You’re judging the core of the action.
Why You Should Probably Use It Less
Let's be real. If you can delete the phrase and the sentence still means the exact same thing, hit backspace.
Bad example: "The rain, in and of itself, made the day gloomy."
Better: "The rain made the day gloomy."
The "in and of itself" adds zero value there. It’s just noise. However, look at this: "The data is not proof of a trend in and of itself."
Now, that works. It tells the reader that while the data is interesting, it requires external context—like a larger sample size or a longer timeframe—to actually mean something. It’s a qualifier. It sets boundaries.
The Cultural Impact of the Phrase
Interestingly, the phrase gained a massive pop-culture boost recently because of Derek DelGaudio’s stage show and film, In & Of Itself.
If you haven't seen it, it’s a masterclass in identity. DelGaudio uses the concept to explore who we are when we aren't being "someone" for "somebody." Are you a teacher? A son? A failure? Or are you something else in and of itself?
The show struck a chord because we live in an era of "personal branding." We are constantly defined by our relationships, our jobs, and our social media feeds. The idea that there is a "self" that exists independently of those labels is actually quite radical. It’s a return to that Kantian idea of the thing-in-itself, but applied to the human soul.
It’s about the struggle of being seen for who you are, rather than what you do.
Practical Ways to Apply This Thinking
Understanding this concept can actually help your decision-making. When you're facing a tough choice, try to isolate the variables.
👉 See also: Why Ina Garten’s Pea Soup is Actually the Only Recipe You Need This Winter
Stop looking at the prestige of a job offer. Look at the work in and of itself. Would you enjoy the daily tasks if nobody ever knew you held that title? If the answer is no, you’re chasing the context, not the essence.
This works for relationships, too. Do you like the person, or do you like the way they make you look? Do you like the hobby, or do you just like the "aesthetic" of being the kind of person who has that hobby?
It’s a brutal way to self-reflect. It strips away the ego.
Actionable Insights for Your Writing and Life
If you want to master the use of this concept—and the phrase—keep these points in mind.
First, check for redundancy. If you’re using it to mean "essentially," just use "essentially." It’s shorter. It’s punchier. Save "in and of itself" for moments where you are explicitly separating an object from its environment or consequences.
Second, use it to clarify boundaries. In business, you might say, "This mistake isn't a fireable offense in and of itself, but given the previous warnings, we have to take action." This shows a clear logical progression.
Finally, use the philosophy behind the phrase to find your own "core." In a noisy world, finding what matters to you in and of itself—without the influence of likes, shares, or external validation—is probably the most important thing you can do for your mental health.
Go through your current projects. Identify which ones you are doing because the work is rewarding in and of itself. Those are the ones worth keeping. The others are just context.