Aesthetic transfiguration, as described by Nietzsche, is the capacity of art to alchemize the meaningless sufferings of natural existence into the aesthetically magnificent struggle that is human ‘life’. Like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer assessed ‘art from the perspective of life’. As Schopenhauer is standardly read, however, his conception of aesthetic experience has little in common with that offered by Nietzsche. Against the standard reading, this chapter argues that Nietzsche’s psychology of aesthetic experience—and in particular his idea that aesthetic transfiguration invests human experience (...) with positive value—is essentially an elaboration of insights owed to Schopenhauer. (shrink)

(No abstract is available for this citation).

In our commentary we ask whether we should ultimately endeavour to find the deep causes of behaviours? Then we discuss two extensions of the proposed framework: (1) Mendelian randomisation and (2) hypothesis-free gene–environment interaction (leveraging heterogeneity in genetic associations). These complementary methods help move us towards second-generation causal knowledge, ultimately understanding mechanistic pathways and identifying more effective intervention targets.

Tejera, strongly influenced by Dewey, operates on the working hypothesis that art is both a kind of experience and a kind of making, and addresses himself to the "inextricably related" problems of the ends and the creation of art. Creativity becomes the key; man is viewed as "the creative animal," and artistic creation is seen as a sort of natural human activity, to be understood in relation to all other human activities. Most traditional problems of aesthetics are taken up at (...) some point, but it is not quite clear how all the parts fit together. The book contains forty-five prints and, considered in terms of its physical format, is something of a work of art in its own right.—A. E. J. (shrink)