What is the nature of boredom? Is "boringness" an intrinsic property of certain things (things being objects, actions, properties, etc.)? Are our feelings of boredom induced by boring things? Or is it the case that us humans simply imagine certain things as boring? If this is the case, are there certain properties of things that make us more likely to call that thing boring?
In any case, how should we consider "boringness" in our ethical judgments? Is finding something boring a sign that we do not truly want to do it? Should we ever do things that we do not truly want to do - that we have no motive, direct or indirect, to do?
Any books on this subject?
>>9374526
Das Kapital by Karl Marx
Read the pale King
>>9374526
"...and that boredom is a direct proof that existence is in itself valueless, for boredom is nothing other than the sensation of the emptiness of existence. " - A. Schopenhauer
senpai
Your boredom arises out of a lack of concentration. Cultivate the ability of deep concentration, and you will find that concentrating on almost anything is intrinsicly not boring.
Boredom is pretty much that haze and mesmer that people fall into when they are searching for somewhere to distract themselves and get lost in thought in. Like browsing the internet with no initial intention, but looking for something to distract you. This creates boredom.
>That human life must be some kind of mistake is sufficiently proved by the simple observation that man is a compound of needs which are hard to satisfy; that their satisfaction achieves nothing but a painless condition in which he is only given over to boredom; and that boredom is a direct proof that existence is in itself valueless, for boredom is nothing other than the sensation of the emptiness of existence. For if life, in the desire for which our essence and existence consists, possessed in itself a positive value and real content, then would be no such thing as boredom: mere existence would fulfill and satisfy us. As things are, we take no pleasure in existence except when we are striving after something - in which case distance and difficulties make our goal look as if it would satisfy us (an illusion which fades when we reach it)- or when engaged ill purely intellectual activity, in which case we are really stepping out of life so as to regard it from outside, like spectators at a play. Even sensual pleasure itself consists in a continual striving and ceases as soon as its goal is reached. Whenever we are not involved in one or other of these things but directed back to existence itself we are overtaken by its worthlessness anti vanity and this is the sensation called boredom.
>>9374992
I don't think the existence of boredom necessarily implies that human life was "some kind of mistake". Just because something requires external input to function properly doesn't make it a mistake; in fact there isn't anything which is entirely independent of all else. Putting a man in an empty room and observing his boredom/uselessness would be like putting a bike in there and concluding that it is worthless.
>>9374992
>16 KB JPG>That human life must be some kind of mistake is sufficiently proved by the simple observation that man is a compound of needs which are hard to satisfy; that their satisfaction achieves nothing but a painless condition in which he is only given over to boredom;
that's the logic of hedonists, but turns out you can stop caring about the senses (senses that hedonists equate to life) and it turns out that this top is stopping unhappiness.
boredom is the real clue that hedonism fails and that people remain deluded when they claim that ''searching for passions'' or devoting one's life to helping people is a solution.