Advertisement

Is Profound Boredom Boredom?

  • Andreas ElpidorouEmail author
  • Lauren Freeman
Chapter
Part of the Philosophers in Depth book series (PID)

Abstract

Martin Heidegger is often credited as having offered one of the most thorough phenomenological investigations of the nature of boredom. In his 1929–1930 lecture course, The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics: World, Finitude, Solitude, he goes to great lengths to distinguish between three different types of boredom and to explicate their respective characters. Within the context of his discussion of one of these types of boredom, profound boredom (tiefe Langeweile), Heidegger opposes much of the philosophical and literary tradition on boredom insofar as he articulates how the experience of boredom can be existentially beneficial to us. In this chapter, we undertake a study of the nature of profound boredom with the aim of investigating its place within contemporary psychological and philosophical research on boredom. Although boredom used to be a neglected emotional experience, it is no more. Boredom’s causal antecedents, effects, experiential profile, and neurophysiological correlates have become topics of active study; as a consequence, a proliferation of claims and findings about boredom has ensued. Such a situation provides an opportunity to scrutinize Heidegger’s claims and to try to understand them both on their own terms and in light of our contemporary understanding of boredom.

Keywords

Boredom Emotion Psychology Neurophysiology 

References

  1. Bargdill, Richard W. 2000. “The Study of Life Boredom.” Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 31 (2): 188–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Britton, Annie, and Martin J. Shipley. 2010. “Bored to Death?” International Journal of Epidemiology 39 (2): 370–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crowell, Steven Galt. 2001. Husserl, Heidegger, and the Space of Meaning: Paths Toward Transcendental Phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dahlstrom, Daniel O. 1994. “Heidegger’s Method: Philosophical Concepts as Formal Indications.” The Review of Metaphysics, 47 (4): 775–795.Google Scholar
  5. de Beistegui, Miguel. 2003. Thinking with Heidegger: Displacements. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Eastwood, John D., Alexandra Frischen, Mark J. Fenske, and Daniel Smilek. 2012. “The Unengaged Mind: Defining Boredom in Terms of Attention.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (5): 482–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elpidorou, Andreas. 2014. “The Bright Side of Boredom.” Frontiers in Psychology 5.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01245.
  8. Elpidorou, Andreas. 2017. “The Moral Dimensions of Boredom: A Call for Research.” Review of General Psychology 21 (1): 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elpidorou, Andreas. 2018a. “The Bored Mind Is a Guiding Mind: Toward a Regulatory Theory of Boredom.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 17 (3): 455–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elpidorou, Andreas. 2018b. “The Good of Boredom.” Philosophical Psychology 31 (3): 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elpidorou, Andreas, and Lauren Freeman. 2015. “Affectivity in Heidegger I: Moods and Emotions in Being and Time.” Philosophy Compass 10 (10): 661–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farmer, Richard, and Norman D. Sundberg. 1986. “Boredom Proneness—The Development and Correlates of a New Scale.” Journal of Personality Assessment 50 (1): 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fenichel, Otto. 1951. “On the Psychology of Boredom.” In Organization and Pathology of Thought: Selected Sources, edited by David Rapaport, 349–361. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman, Lauren. 2019. “Boredom.” In The Heidegger Lexicon, edited by Mark Wrathall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Freeman, Lauren. 2014. “Toward a Phenomenology of Mood.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 52 (4): 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman, Lauren, and Andreas Elpidorou. 2015. “Affectivity in Heidegger II: Temporality, Boredom, and Beyond.” Philosophy Compass 10 (10): 672–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Granberg, Anne. 2003. “Mood and Method in Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit.” In Metaphysics, Facticity, Interpretation, edited by Dan Zahavi, Sara Heinämaa, and Hans Ruin, 91–113. Dordrecht: Kluver Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kisiel, Theodore. 1993. The Genesis of Heidegger’s Being & Time. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. MacAvoy, Leslie. 2010. “Formal Indication and the Hermeneutics of Facticity.” Philosophy Today 54 (SPEP Suppl.): 84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maltsberger, John T. 2000. “Mansur Zaskar: A Man Almost Bored to Death.” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 30 (1): 83–90.Google Scholar
  21. Polt, Richard. 1999. Heidegger: An Introduction. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ratcliffe, Matthew. 2013. “Why Moods Matter.” In The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger’s Being and Time, edited by Mark Wrathall, 157–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Slaby, Jan. 2014. “The Other Side of Existence: Heidegger on Boredom.” In Habitus in Habitat II: Other Sides of Cognition, edited by Sabine Flach and Jan Söffner, 101–120. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  24. Slaby, Jan. 2015. “Affectivity and Temporality in Heidegger.” In Feeling and Value, Willing and Action: Phaenomenologica 216, edited by Marta Ubiali and Maren Wehrle, 183–206. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Spacks, Patricia Meyer. 1995. Boredom: The Literary History of a State of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Spinoza, Benedictus. 1985. The Collected Works of Spinoza. Vol. 1. Edited and translated by Edwin Curley. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Streeter, Ryan. 1997. “Heidegger’s Formal Indication: A Question of Method in Being and Time.” Man and World 30 (4): 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Tilburg, Wijnand A. P., and Eric R. Igou. 2011. “On Boredom and Social Identity: A Pragmatic Meaning-Regulation Approach.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37 (12): 1679–1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Tilburg, Wijnand A. P, and Eric R. Igou. 2012. “On Boredom: Lack of Challenge and Meaning as Distinct Boredom Experiences.” Motivation and Emotion 36 (2): 181–194.Google Scholar
  30. Vodanovich, Stephen J. 2003. “Psychometric Measures of Boredom: A Review of the Literature.” The Journal of Psychology 137 (6): 569–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vodanovich, Stephen J., and John D. Watt. 2016. “Self-Report Measures of Boredom: An Updated Review of the Literature.” The Journal of Psychology 150 (2): 196–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Westgate Erin C., and Timothy D. Wilson. 2018. “Boring Thoughts and Bored Minds: The MAC Model of Boredom and Cognitive Engagement.” Psychological Review 125 (5): 689–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zuckerman, Marvin. 1979. Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations