You’ve heard it a thousand times in meetings, read it in dry academic papers, and probably muttered it yourself while trying to sound a bit more sophisticated during a dinner party debate. In and of itself. It’s one of those linguistic staples that feels heavy, like it carries the weight of a philosopher’s stone, but most of the time, we’re just using it as filler.
It’s linguistic clutter.
Honestly, the phrase is often a victim of its own success. We use it to isolate a specific thing from its surroundings, but in doing so, we frequently strip away the context that actually makes the thing interesting. If you say "the car, in and of itself, is beautiful," you’re trying to ignore the fact that it’s currently sitting in a junkyard with a blown engine. You’re isolating the soul from the circumstance.
But where did this actually come from? It’s not just a quirk of modern English. It’s a direct descendant of Latin—specifically per se. If you want to get technical (and why wouldn’t you?), per se translates literally to "by itself" or "in itself." Somewhere along the line, English speakers decided that wasn't emphatic enough. We added the "and of" to give it that extra rhythmic punch, turning a simple prepositional phrase into a rhythmic triplet that rolls off the tongue.
The Philosophical Baggage of In and of Itself
Kant. That’s the guy you have to blame for some of this. Immanuel Kant, the 18th-century German philosopher, obsessed over the Ding an sich—the "thing-in-itself."
Kant’s whole deal was that our senses are basically liars, or at least very limited filters. We see a red apple, but we aren't seeing the apple in and of itself. We’re seeing our brain's interpretation of light reflecting off a surface. The "thing-in-itself" is the reality that exists independently of our observation. It’s the raw, unflavored version of the universe.
✨ Don't miss: Why the Com Tam Dao Vien Menu Is Still the Gold Standard for San Jose Foodies
When you use the phrase today, you’re accidentally channeling a massive epistemological crisis. You’re suggesting that a thing has an essence that survives even when you strip away its utility or its reputation.
Take a $100 bill.
In and of itself, it’s just a scrap of cotton-linen fiber with some green ink. It has almost zero intrinsic value. You can’t eat it, and it won't keep you warm for long if you burn it. Its entire "value" is a collective hallucination we all agree to participate in. So, when someone says "the money, in and of itself, isn't the problem," they are technically right, but practically wrong because the money doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Why We Keep Saying It Wrong
The biggest mistake? Redundancy. People love to tack it onto the end of sentences where it adds absolutely nothing.
"The decision, in and of itself, was difficult."
Just say the decision was difficult. Adding the phrase implies there were outside factors making it more difficult, but usually, the speaker is just trying to take up more space in the air. It’s like wearing a tuxedo to a backyard BBQ; you’re technically dressed, but you’re doing way too much for the occasion.
Another common slip-up is using it when you actually mean "inherently" or "intrinsically." While they overlap, in and of itself specifically denotes isolation. It’s a tool for compartmentalization. If you’re talking about a person’s character, saying they are "kind in and of themselves" sounds weirdly robotic. Kindness is a relational trait. It requires an object. You can’t be kind in a void.
The Derek DelGaudio Connection
We can’t talk about this phrase in 2026 without mentioning the massive cultural footprint left by Derek DelGaudio’s "In & Of Itself." If you haven't seen the filmed version of his stage show, you’re missing out on one of the most profound explorations of identity ever put to tape.
DelGaudio took this dusty linguistic relic and turned it into a mirror.
His show wasn't just magic; it was a narrative about how we are defined by the labels others put on us versus who we are when no one is looking. He took the Kantian "thing-in-itself" and applied it to the human soul. Are you a teacher? A liar? A father? Or are you something that exists in and of itself, separate from those titles?
The show became a viral sensation because it tapped into a universal anxiety: the fear that we are just the sum of our roles. By using that specific title, DelGaudio forced the audience to reckon with the literal definition of the phrase. It wasn't just a clever name; it was the thesis statement.
Stop Using It as a Shield
In the business world, this phrase is a classic "deflection" tactic. You’ll hear a CEO say, "The data, in and of itself, is neutral."
That’s a fancy way of avoiding responsibility for what the data actually shows. It’s a way to separate the result from the action. When someone isolates a fact using this phrase, they are often trying to distract you from the implications.
- "The layoff, in and of itself, was handled legally." (Translation: It was a nightmare for the employees, but you can't sue us.)
- "The product, in and of itself, is safe." (Translation: Just don't use it the way everyone obviously uses it.)
It’s a linguistic scalpel used to cut the "thing" away from the "consequence."
How to Actually Use It Without Sounding Like a Bot
If you want to use in and of itself and actually sound like a human who knows what they’re talking about, use it to highlight a paradox.
✨ Don't miss: Why Good Morning Tuesday Coffee Hits Different After the Monday Blur
Use it when the isolation of the object reveals something surprising. For example: "The silence, in and of itself, was deafening." Here, the phrase works because it emphasizes that the lack of sound was the primary source of the intensity. You aren't just filling space; you're creating a focal point.
Or use it to challenge a common assumption about value. "The vintage camera was broken, but in and of itself, it was a masterpiece of mechanical engineering." That works. You’re distinguishing the function (broken) from the essence (engineering).
Practical Rules for the Road
- The "Remove It" Test: Read your sentence without the phrase. If the meaning doesn't change at all, delete it. Your writing will immediately get 10% punchier.
- Check for Redundancy: Don't use it alongside words like "intrinsically" or "basically." It’s "The steak was good," not "The steak, basically in and of itself, was intrinsically good." That's a word salad.
- Respect the History: Remember that you’re invoking a centuries-old philosophical concept. Use it when you’re actually talking about the nature of a thing, not just as a transition.
Most of our communication is about connections. We talk about how one thing leads to another, how people affect each other, and how the past shapes the present. In and of itself is the rare tool that lets us do the opposite. It lets us pause and look at one single piece of the universe as if nothing else exists.
That’s a powerful thing. Don't waste it on a boring email about Q3 projections.
To improve your writing immediately, go back through your last three sent emails or drafted articles. Search for the phrase. If you find it, apply the "Remove It" test. If the sentence stands on its own, let it. Only keep the phrase when you are intentionally trying to isolate an object from its consequences or its environment for a specific, logical reason.