Tautology. Other Things.

Several philosophers I like tend to revert to tautologies. Chiefly: 'It is what it is' and 'This is what I have to do because this is what I have to do'. I am of course referring largely to Collingwood, but I've also observed this tendency in Dewey, and I think Bergson. Others, too, no doubt.

What is up with this? How can you just say that 'it is what is is' and expect to be taken seriously by rigorous thinkers? How can you avoid the conclusion that my friend observed tonight: 'everything is what it is'. Because if everything is X then nothing is X.

Aye.

A minor point.

Yet there is a depth in this tautology. A depth that may reside in the concept of particularity.

Because things are not merely in the sense that they are general, but are in the sense that they are precisely what they are.

When I resort to the tautologies I often mean to imply a sense of particularity. I mean to say: 'Hey, this is the situation you are in, and as much as you'd like it not to be true, it cannot be compared or reduced to other kinds of situations'.

'It is what it is' is a recognition that I am what I am and nothing else.

I am singular and the world is singular.

This fits nicely with what I'm trying to think about: that there is no substitute for reflection, no knowledge other than knowledge of the self.

How to square this with the buddhist claim that there is no self, I don't know.

I admit, moreover, that I am tired of thinking. I'm incredibly tired. Ready to apply to graduate programs. Ready to doubt my choice.

Ready to live until I die.

I hope I have the strength to die gracefully.