But, really I think the saying signifies that there's something deeper than what it is. By stating that it is what it is either affirms that there is certainty lacking in our propositional attitude towards the issue/subject/matter, or that we have encountered a known unknown.

It could also mean that there's an unknown unknown and that no matter of investigation on what it is will be achieved.

But, really I think the saying signifies that there's something deeper than what it is. — Posty McPostface

Then the saying would be "it is more than it is".

Yes, but in a dialectical search for meaning, the ontological preposition to your position has to be asserted first.

Yes, but in a dialectical search for meaning, the ontological preposition to your position has to be asserted first. — Posty McPostface

Sorry, would you mind simplifying this for me?

So, to borrow one of my favorite sayings;

There are;
1) Known knowns
2) Known unknowns
and,
3) Unknown unknowns.

It is what it is applied to all three in stronger force by the next saying 1>2>3. Meaning, that for us to begin examining known unknowns and unknown unknowns, we first have to acknowledge 1 & 2, to get to 3. We can acknowledge 1 by asserting that 'It is what it is'. Then we can acknowledge 2 by saying 'It is what it is, or isn't.' And, finally proceeding to 3, based on our knowledge of 1 and 2 (It is what it is, and we know what it isn't), then we can start examining what it really is in reality or to put another way, the sum total of 1 and 2, creates the grounds for beginning to examine 3 by constantly referring back to 1 and 2, with the loop starting from 1 to 2 and repeating until certainty can be arrived at.

So, you've discovered a formula for examining what things are?

I don't take it as a formula because 1 will always be limited by 2 and 3. Certainty then becomes a pipe dream and knowing that one knows, in reality, not that much or amounts to nothing much, well, then some form of certainty about not knowing certainty can be arrived at.

That isn't to say that degrees of knowledge can't be arrived at though. Otherwise, we'd have some version of Zeno's paradox at play here and no progress can be made. Rather, a perpetual sense of incompleteness at the very strongest point of knowledge.

a perpetual sense of incompleteness at the very strongest point of knowledge. — Posty McPostface

This is pretty good summation of what goes through my head when someone uses "it is what it is" in a debate.

What's done is done, it is what it is, whatever will be will be. These are definitely not meaningless truisms, and whoever thinks that has not thought it through enough. I'm entirely with Posty when he says that it'd make a good mantra, and I get why that guy got it tattooed on himself. Reminds me of my own tattoo: "Amor Fati".

What's done is done, it is what it is, whatever will be will be. — Sapientia

The highly appealing aspect of these 'truisms' is that they're observer independent. Meaning, that they have some universal aspect to where they derive meaning.

I find that comforting in a world obsessed with 'I', 'me', and 'you' propositional attitudes.

And here some my inner Wittgenstein:

The world is the totality of facts not 'I, me, and my and your propositional attitudes; but, rather our propositional attitudes'.

"It is what it is" is a tautology - redundancy with an information content of zero.

Perhaps, 2000 years of fruitless thinking can be summed up in this statement. On the other hand, there may be a deeper meaning which I'm not aware of.

I am that I am

"It is what it is"

When giving a causal explanation?

Here it looks like an admission of ignorance.

When giving orders or reasons?

Presumably it means that we have reached bedrock when providing a chain of reasons, and that further logical justification of our reasons is nonsensical or forbidden.

mmm... now what is the connection between a nonsensical utterance and a forbidden utterance?

If Wittgenstein says "this string of words is nonsensical" doesn't he only mean to imply that in order to prevent confusion that sequence of words ought to be forbidden?

I suspect that in both of the above cases, "it is was it is" is an imperative disguised as a proposition.

On the other hand, there may be a deeper meaning which I'm not aware of. — TheMadFool

There is, and explanations have been given. Just think about how it's used rather than taking it at face value.

Presumably it means that we have reached bedrock when providing a chain of reasons, and that further logical justification of our reasons is nonsensical or forbidden. — sime

See? Other people get it.

You'd have to be a robot not to be able to understand it has potential meaning - as a form of submission, a declaration of acceptance, a stoical cry, a determination not to be defeated, and more as mentioned. It's not only the logic that's important but the context (see the recent feedback discussion, for example) and the fact that the words are spoken at all. Expressions express.

I like the phrase because it extends meaning out of the context where it is derived from. It's a statement made when the meaning derived from some object or subject is inadequate or incomplete and needs reexamination, revision, and with that understanding, a new facet of the subject or object can be obtained.

See? Other people get it. — Sapientia

Thinking has run into an insurmountable barrier?

It's not only the logic that's important — Baden

(Y)