In this commentary I critically engage with Andreas Elpidorou’s monograph the Anatomy of Boredom, the aim of which is to develop a functional model of boredom through which its complexity might be unified. After introducing Elpidorou’s functionalist approach, I focus on a particularly novel contribution of the Anatomy, which conceptualizes boredom as a functional mechanism integral to the regulation of cognitive homeostasis–allostasis. Framed by the tension between the “Problem of Plenty” and the “Problem of Parts,” I raise two concerns with Elpidorou’s account, one teleological and one taxonomical, before offering an alternative that draws on recent thermodynamic accounts of living systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Emily Hughes (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: