The depth-psychology and affective-neuroscience corpus treats Embodied Aesthetic Response as the class of somatic, visceral, and psychophysiological phenomena that arise when a subject encounters an aesthetically significant stimulus — art, music, nature, poetry, film, or even a grand scientific theory. The field is organized around two interrelated problems: the phenomenological structure of these responses and their neural substrate. The most extensively studied marker is the aesthetic chill — piloerection, shivers, goosebumps — which Schoeller and collaborators situate within a predictive-interoceptive framework, arguing that bodily feedback constitutes, rather than merely accompanies, emotional experience. Bannister complicates this picture by demonstrating that chills are not a unitary phenomenon but resolve into at least three phenomenologically distinct categories — warm, cold, and moving — each indexed to different social and narrative contexts. Williams, Johnson, and colleagues approach the same terrain from a personality-science orientation, establishing that proneness to aesthetic chill is the single strongest item-level correlate of Openness to Experience and a reliable physiological marker of awe. Hillman, writing from within archetypal psychology, insists that the aesthetic response must be understood as a mode of perception — what he calls an eye for beauty and ugliness alike — and that depth psychology has engaged the aesthetic primarily through pathology rather than beauty. Menninghaus theorizes aesthetic emotions as irreducible to hedonic valence, emphasizing mixed and negative emotional states in genuine aesthetic appreciation. Together these voices reveal a productive tension: whether embodied aesthetic response is best understood as a neurobiological mechanism, a personality trait, a phenomenological category, or a mode of soul-making.