1. Nietzsche contra Freud
Nathan Ward
PHIL 4075
Professor: Jessica Berry
Georgia State University

2. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate conceptual similarities between the
psychoanalytic theories of Sigmund Freud and Friedrich Nietzsche’s aesthetic theory of the
Dionysian and Apollonian. I have formulated the following thesis after reading the works of both
of these thinkers: Nietzsche and Freud both formulated theories that, as I understand them, spring
from a certain predilection for exploring the preservative and destructive tendencies inherent to
life. The primary difference, broadly speaking, is that Freud sought to explain these tendencies in
psychological terms supported by clinical data, whereas Nietzsche provided an account of Greek
tragedy as opposed artistic principles reflecting said tendencies (Nietzsche & Kauffman, p. 99).1
I will argue that several of Nietzsche and Freud’s respective concepts can be categorized
according to these tendencies. I will clarify how each thinker’s concepts are categorized under
what I shall call the primary headings, preservation and destruction respectively. This serves the
dual purpose of providing organizational clarity and broadly illustrating what I perceive as
similarities between the concepts themselves. First, I will list each thinker’s concepts and
organize them under these two primary headings. I will then define each thinker’s concepts and
demonstrate their similarities with reference to the primary headings. If my account is correct I
think that it will demonstrate the superior explanatory power of Nietzsche’s concepts, especially
as they relate to phenomena of preservation and destruction as exhibited by the human psyche.
However, I also think that much of what Freud brings to the conceptual table builds upon and
accentuates what are arguably loose ends in Nietzsche’s thought despite the superior explanatory
power of Nietzsche’s concepts.
1 Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and Walter Arnold Kaufmann Basic Writings of Nietzsche.
NewYork: Modern Library, 1968. Print. Note: all citations pertaining to Ecce Homo and The
Birth of Tragedy originate from this translation.

3. I think that Nietzsche and Freud are both interested in preservative and destructive
phenomena and evidence of this is exhibited in their respective works numerous times.2 Many of
their concepts and ideas reflect this interest under different names; Freud often refers to the
destructiveness of the death instinct or attests to its presence in aggressive behavior (Freud, The
Ego And The Id p. 43). Nietzsche speaks of the “hidden substratum of suffering” that comprises
existence, and claims that the terror of this realization is quelled by Dionysian art (Nietzsche &
Kauffman, p. 60). I will now explain how I have organized each thinker’s concepts under the
primary headings of preservation and destruction. Imagine if you will, two lines in the shape of a
cross. At the top part of this cross, to the left and right of the horizontal line, are our two primary
headings, preservation and destruction respectively. Under preservation I group Freud’s Eros,
reality principle, and superego; along with Nietzsche’s concept of the Apollonian. Under
destruction I group Freud’s death instinct3 pleasure principle, and Id along with Nietzsche’s
concept of the Dionysian. Notice that the order the concepts are listed in align with one another.
For instance, Eros and Thanatos would fall to the left and the right of our dividing line, and so on
with the reality principle and the pleasure principle etc. This gives us four pairs of concepts,
three from Freud on each side of the dividing line and one from Nietzsche.
But what of the ego, one might ask? I have not excluded this concept, but I will set it
aside for now. Now for the tricky part, other than falling under the broad similarities of the
primary headings, how are all of these concepts related? Rather than attempt to analyze and
2 For a selection of further examples see (Freud, Beyond The Pleasure Principle p. 73 see
footnote) (Freud, The Ego And The Id, p. 27, 31-36, 49) (Nietzsche & Kauffman, p. 46-47, 60,
68-69)
3 For the sake of brevity I will utilize the post-Freudian term Thanatos to refer to the death
instinct.

4. define each concept in relation to its opposite on our chart, I think it will be more helpful to first
discuss precisely why each concept falls under the primary heading it does. Once this reasoning
has been established, I will demonstrate how each of the three Freudian concepts is subsumed by
the single Nietzschean concept on either side of our dividing line. I will begin with the concepts
listed under preservation and follow with those listed under destruction.
I turn now to the discussion of the concepts under the primary heading preservation,
beginning with the three Freudian concepts. In his work The Ego And The Id4, Freud gives what
is arguably his most well developed and succinct account of the workings of psychoanalytic
terminology. Eros is essentially that instinctual component of human life that favors constructive
endeavors; it is the instinctual desire to create things beyond oneself. Freud says, “It (Eros)
comprises not merely the uninhibited sexual instinct proper and the instinctual impulses of an
aim-inhibited or sublimated nature derived from it, but also the self-preservative instinct, which
must be assigned to the ego…”(Freud, The Ego And The Id p. 30). For Freud, Eros is not solely
the instinct to create through sexual reproduction, although that is certainly a component of it.
Eros also comprises the self-preservative instinct that all humans share (to varying degrees, that
is). Without an instinct of self-preservation to keep one alive long enough to reproduce, the
creative aspect of Eros i.e., “the uninhibited sexual instinct proper”, would be rendered null.
Freud assigns this instinct of self-preservation, which is part of Eros, to the ego.5 Related to this
self-preservative component of Eros is the reality principle.
4 Freud, Sigmund S. The Ego And The Id. Trans. Joan Riviere. Ed. James Strachey: Norton,
1962. Print.
5 Presumably, the other aspect of Eros, procreation, would align with the Id rather than the ego.
This is because the uninhibited procreative component of Eros would, I presume, be governed by
the pleasure principle rather than the reality principle. The reality principle surely augments the
sexual instinct of Eros, but it is the Id driven pleasure principle that creates it.

5. Freud realized the need to explain why humans do not simply pursue the maximum
amount of pleasure possible at all times (Freud, Beyond The Pleasure Principle p. 6). Freud says,
“Under the influence of the ego’s instincts of self-preservation, the pleasure principle is replaced
by the reality principle. This latter principle does not abandon the intention of ultimately
obtaining pleasure, but it nevertheless demands and carries into effect the postponement of
satisfaction, the abandonment of a number of possibilities of gaining satisfaction and the
temporary toleration of un-pleasure as a step on the long indirect road to pleasure” (Freud,
Beyond The Pleasure Principle p. 7).6 In essence, the reality principle forces the psyche to
consider the risks and repercussions presented to it by the external world, considerations that the
pleasure principle simply ignores (Freud, Beyond The Pleasure Principle p. 5-7). In doing so it
acts like a valve, pleasure is kept trickling into the psyche as often as possible but it doesn’t let it
flow uninhibited. The third and final Freudian concept grouped under the heading preservation is
the superego.
The superego is differentiated from both the ego and the Id. Essentially, the superego
compels the human psyche to act in accordance with internalized societal and parental ideals, it
acts as an internal moral compass or conscience and is responsible for feelings of guilt
(Freud, The Ego And The Id p. 27). Freud says, “…the differentiation of the super-ego from the
ego is no matter of chance; it represents the most important characteristics of the development
both of the individual and of the species; indeed, by giving permanent expression to the influence
of the parents it perpetuates the existence of the factors to which it owes its origin” (Freud, The
Ego And The Id p. 25). What Freud is saying is that the super-ego works to perpetuate the states
6 Freud, Sigmund S. Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Trans. James Strachey. New York: Norton,
1961. Print.

6. of affairs that led to its creation i.e. procreation. On the individual level, one could say that the
values of the parents were such that procreation was possible. They maintained and acted upon
values that ultimately led to procreation and the successful rearing of a child with its own
superego. On the societal level, it could be said that cultural values and injunctions were such
that procreation and the rearing of a child were possible. On both levels the super-ego is the
psychic mechanism that maintains these rule structures through time and ensures that they are
carried forth into new generations. Freud says, “As a child grows up, the role of father is carried
on by teachers and others in authority; their injunctions and prohibitions remain powerful in the
ego ideal and continue, in the form of conscience, to exercise moral censorship” (Freud, The Ego
And The Id p. 27). Thus, the role of the super-ego in the human psyche can be explained in terms
of preservation just as Eros and the reality principle can be. Eros preserves and works to help
create life, the reality principle works to preserve a stable equilibrium of pleasure vs. un-
pleasure, and the super-ego preserves the structure and authority of parental and societal rules
through time. I will now explain how these three concepts are related to Nietzsche’s concept of
the Apollonian.
Friedrich Nietzsche most frequently utilizes the concepts of the Apollonian & Dionysian
in The Birth of Tragedy as descriptors for opposed artistic forces within Greek culture. However,
he also discusses these concepts elsewhere. The chapter “Why I Write Such Good Books” in
Ecce Homo contains a highly useful addendum on The Birth Of Tragedy, as does the chapter in
Twilight Of The Idols7 titled “What I owe To The Ancients”. Apollonian & Dionysian aesthetics
are not only a metaphysical or conceptual viewpoint on art; they also serve as fitting reflections
7 Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and Anthony M. Ludovici. Twilight of the Idols; with The
Antichrist; and Ecce Homo. Wordsworth Editions, 2007. Print.

7. upon the psychology of those who create art. The Apollonian is exemplified in sculpture; its
aesthetic effect is essentially analytic and demarcating, hence it can be said that humans come to
have a sense of individuality (principium individuationis) because of the boundary forming
aspect of the Apollonian (Nietzsche & Kauffman, p. 36, 99, 128). The pacifying quality of
civilization would not be possible without the moderating influence of the Apollonian. Speaking
of the Greeks, Nietzsche says, “I saw how all their institutions grew out of measures of security
calculated to preserve each member of their society from the inner explosive material that lays
in his neighbor’s breast” (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols p. 85). The very structures that create
boundaries between humanity and the world, as well as between other men, are rooted in the
Apollonian side of our nature. The Apollonian moderates the Dionysian and civilization
flourishes, but it also serves to shape and moderate the “explosive material”, i.e. the Dionysian,
within the human psyche.8
In Freudian terms, the Apollonian embodies the self-critical superego; it acts as the
objectifying impulse needed to rationalize the Dionysian and preserve it from its own wanton
destruction. The Apollonian is essentially the mediator between the primeval and domesticated
(i.e. civilized) aspects of our humanity. As a mediating force in the psyche, one can see the
relation between Nietzsche’s concept of the Apollonian and Freud’s reality principle. Both serve
to channel or otherwise restrict the potentially destructive aspects of the human psyche, the Id
and the Dionysian respectively (Thanatos will be discussed later on). Thus, they both serve what
essentially amounts to a preservative role. This is because they limit the influence of destructive
8 This is quite similar to Freud’s thesis in Civilization And Its Discontents, but such a discussion
far exceeds the scope of this paper.

8. tendencies in the psyche and in doing so maintain the states of affairs required for life to
continue.
At this point it is useful to recall that Eros, as the life instinct, includes both the instincts
of reproduction and self-preservation. This is key, because the Apollonian is similarly involved
in self-preservation for many of the same reasons as Eros. Although it is useful to discuss the
three Freudian concepts in isolation, it is even more fruitful to view them as components of a
larger whole. My contention is that Eros effectively subsumes both the reality principle and the
superego as phenomena of self-preservation. The difference I wish to highlight is that the
Apollonian achieves this same explanatory power regarding preservation, on both the individual
and societal levels, with far fewer conceptual bits of machinery. The conclusion that I have
drawn from this is that Nietzsche’s concept of the Apollonian is ultimately the superior
explanatory mechanism for the phenomena of preservation as it manifests in the human psyche.
This conclusion may appear somewhat strained at this point, but this is only half of the story.
Although, Nietzsche would claim, the Greeks realized the import of the Apollonian on
maintaining the civilizing structures of society; they never forgot what those structures were
meant to hold in check, the “Dionysian flood and excess” (Nietzsche & Kauffman, pg. 129). I
will now turn to a discussion of the four concepts I have listed under the primary heading of
destruction.
The case for Nietzsche and Freud being interested in destruction is somewhat easier to
make than their being interested in preservation. As with the previous discussion, I will begin
with the three Freudian concepts under the primary heading destruction (Thanatos, the pleasure
principle and the Id) before transitioning to Nietzsche’s concept of the Dionysian. Let’s begin
with an examination of Thanatos. Freud posited that “If we are to take it as a truth that knows no

9. exception that everything living dies for internal reasons-becomes inorganic once again-then we
shall be compelled to say that ‘the aim of all life is death’ and, looking backwards, that
‘inanimate things existed before living ones’” (Freud, Beyond The Pleasure Principle p. 45-46).
Human beings are thoroughly accustomed to imputing developmental change as the defining
feature of life. What Freud is pointing out is that “the inertia inherent in organic life” is an
equally defining feature; hence it is logical to conclude that all life has a tendency to return to a
simpler “inorganic” state (Freud, Beyond The Pleasure Principle p. 44-45). This tendency of life
towards death is not so simple as it seems. The extremely vast majority of organisms eventually
die, what Freud is positing is that an actual instinct exists which runs directly counter to Eros,
which “aims at complicating life and at the same time, of course, at preserving it” (Freud, The
Ego And The Id p. 30). Freud’s chain of theoretical reasoning, supported at least in part by the
biological theories of his day, led him to “…put forward the hypothesis of a death instinct, the
task of which is to lead organic life back into the inanimate state…”(Freud, The Ego And The Id
p. 30).9
For Freud, a perpetual tension between Thanatos and Eros manifests in humanity (Freud,
Beyond The Pleasure Principle) p. 61, 64). The instinct of procreation and self-preservation is
forever antagonized by the instinct aimed towards death and self-destruction. The effects of
Thanatos are primarily directed outwards, Freud states “…the death instinct would thus seems to
express itself-though probably only in part-as an instinct of destruction directed against the
external world and other organisms” (Freud, The Ego And The Id p. 31). Consequently, the
9 Although, I think it is worth pointing out that Freud sometimes uses the phrase “death drive”
instead of “death instinct”. Further, he sometimes uses the plural and says “death instincts”
(Freud, The Ego And The Id p. 44) and it is difficult to see how multiple death instincts could
work at once. I do not think it matters for my account whether the strong tendency toward death
that Freud posits is a drive or an instinct, because it is present nevertheless.

10. destructive tendencies of human beings are really just the outward (and inward) manifestation of
a natural process that aims at returning to a previous inorganic state. The destructive influence of
Thanatos is curbed out of necessity. Freud claims that “the dangerous death instincts” are
rendered inert through both erotic and aggressive components, but also points out that “to a large
extent they undoubtedly continue their internal work unhindered”, which suggests, at least to me,
that they often go undetected by the conscious mind (Freud, The Ego And The Id p. 44). The next
concept under the primary heading destruction is the pleasure principle.
The pleasure principle is the force that drives the Id in its constant search for pleasure and
avoidance of pain. Freud argued that the reality principle and the pleasure principle are the twin
principles governing mental life. As discussed previously, the reality principle functions to defer
gratification, it is the “valve” so to speak. The pleasure principle is what attempts to overpower
the restrictions of the ego/super-ego-based reality principle and open the valve completely.
Essentially, the former works to delay gratification, whereas the latter desires only immediate
gratification (Freud, Beyond The Pleasure Principle p. 67, 75-77). The pleasure principle does
not and cannot dominate the psyche, not all of our mental activity involves pleasure (Freud,
Beyond The Pleasure Principle p. 6). Thus, the farthest Freud is willing to go with this concept is
to posit that “there exists in the mind a strong tendency towards the pleasure principle, but that
tendency is opposed by certain other forces or circumstances…”(Freud, Beyond The Pleasure
Principle p. 6). Understanding the pleasure principle is key for understanding the Id, and it is to
that concept I now turn.
The Id is the entirely unconscious part of the human psyche from whence all mental and
physical desires spring, especially those of a sexual or aggressive nature. Freud says, “The ego
represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the Id, which contains

11. the passions”(Freud, The Ego And The Id p. 15). As stated previously, the Id is entirely driven by
the pleasure principle and seeks immediate rather than deferred pleasure whilst simultaneously
striving to avoid pain or (Freud, The Ego And The Id p. 14, 19-20 esp. footnote). The Id is related
to Thanatos because of this strong tendency towards aggressive impulses. In some respects it is
the mirror of the superego, which seeks to restrict such impulses according to the reality
principle. Although the Id might create the impetus for acts of creation, including procreation, its
tendency for immediacy and impulsivity makes it eminently more destructive. Thus, I have
placed the Id under the primary heading of destruction because although it can sometimes assist
with creative acts, its primal irrationality renders it predictably unpredictable at best. As with the
previous primary heading (preservation), I will now relate the three Freudian concepts
categorized under destruction to Nietzsche’s concept of the Dionysian.
The Dionysian embodies the primal uninhibited irrationality of our nature. Pleasure,
dance, rhythm, music (esp. the chorus in Attic tragedy), intoxication, and destruction are all
within the Id driven realms of the Dionysian (Nietzsche & Kauffman, p. 36, 39). Nietzsche
repeatedly refers to the Dionysian as a force for getting in touch with the “primordial unity” or
“primal being” (Nietzsche & Kauffman, p. 37, 50, 104). Gaining an understanding of this
primordial unity, through reaching ones own primal being, reveals the terrifying truth that hidden
beneath the “mere appearance of mere appearance” i.e. the illusions created by the Apollonian,
is the knowledge that all of existence rests upon a “substratum of suffering” (Nietzsche &
Kauffman, p. 46, 64). I think that this “substratum of suffering” actually refers to the fact that
reality, and the human lives within it, constantly experience cycles of creation, preservation, and
eventual destruction. The Dionysian takes stock of the inherently tragic nature of this cycle,
whereas the Apollonian cloaks it in illusion.

12. Nietzsche says that one of the “decisive innovations” of The Birth Of Tragedy is “its
understanding of the Dionysian phenomenon among the Greeks: for the first time, a
psychological analysis of this phenomenon is offered, and it is considered as one root of the
whole of Greek art” (Nietzsche & Kauffman, p.727). Speaking of his psychological analysis of
the Dionysian, Nietzsche says, “The saying of yea to life, including even its most strange and
terrible problems, the will to life rejoicing over its own inexhaustibleness in the sacrifice of its
highest types-this is what I called Dionysian, this is what I divined as the bridge leading to the
psychology of the tragic poet“ (Nietzsche, Twilight Of The Idols p. 88).10 But what exactly is
this tragic psychology and why is it relevant here? I touched on this above briefly already I think
what Nietzsche is trying to say is that the tragic poet does not balk at the suffering that underlies
reality, he is “beyond all terror and pity” and takes joy in all aspects of life, even “that joy which
includes even joy in destroying” (Nietzsche & Kauffman p.729). The tragic poet realizes the
inherent irrationality and tragedy of life, and recognizes in the Dionysian depths of his own
psyche that he mirrors the nature of the world. Thus, he does not turn away from life or attempt
to dress it up; he says yes to it in all of its absurdities, “Nothing in existence may be subtracted,
nothing is dispensable” (Nietzsche & Kauffman, p. 728). The discussion of the psychology
behind the Dionysian is useful because it helps to illustrate that, as a single concept, it covers
much of the same material that took Freud three concepts to explain.
The Dionysian subsumes Thanatos in much the same way as the Apollonian subsumes
Eros, and, in doing so, achieves greater explanatory power. Thanatos also strives for a return to a
simpler primordial i.e. “inorganic” state. However, the primary difference in their striving is that
10 Although it is possible to think of the Apollonian and Dionysian as metaphysical principles of
some sort, reflected in different types of art and expression, it is clear from Ecce Homo and the
section of Twilight Of The Idols titled “What I Owe To The Ancients” that Nietzsche attenuated
his position on these concepts later in his life.

13. the Dionysian appears to work with rather than against the pleasure principle, in doing so it
illuminates the primal truth that the human psyche suffers because it mirrors the suffering of
existence as a whole. Whereas Thanatos appears to work against Eros and its attendant concepts
as it attempts to return the organism to an inorganic state. The Dionysian is pure formless
creative energy; Nietzsche discusses how its essence is exemplified by states of intoxication and
pleasure. This is quite similar to Freud’s concept of the Id, Nietzsche says “If we add to this
terror the blissful ecstasy that wells from the innermost depths of man, indeed of nature, at this
collapse of the principium individuationis, we steal a glimpse into the nature of the Dionysian”
(Nietzsche & Kauffman, p. 36). The collapse of individual boundaries is reminiscent of the Id
because the Id does not recognize boundaries; there are only its own needs and desires guided by
the pleasure principle. In addition, the talk of ecstasy from within the “innermost depths of man”
is remarkably similar to the “libidinal well” of Freud’s Id and hints at the Dionysian being a
primarily unconscious phenomenon. I will end my discussion of the concepts under the primary
heading of destruction here and switch gears. Earlier, I mentioned that I would discuss the ego at
greater length, and it is to that concept we now turn.
At this point it might be asked if the dividing line of our chart, the vertical part of the
cross, has any significance. Up until now I have excluded discussing the ego except in passing. I
turn now to a fuller discussion of it. The dividing line of our conceptual chart represents the ego;
it is midway between destruction and preservation. My contention is that without the ego none of
the concepts under the primary headings preservation and destruction could exist. There would
be no potential for either destruction or preservation without the influence of the ego. The ego
represents creation, and it is the mediator between the preservative and destructive forces within
the psyche. Freud considers the ego to be “Helpless in both directions, the ego defends itself

14. vainly, alike against the instigations of the murderous Id and against the reproaches of the
punishing conscience” (Freud, The Ego And The Id p. 43).
However, I do not think this is entirely accurate, although it certainly applies in some
circumstances. One can view this conceptual schema as a sort of dialectic, where the ego is
essentially the synthesis of preservation and destruction. Interestingly, it seems a symbolic
“synthesis” of this sort is necessary for the artistic acts of creation Nietzsche discusses, and for
the procreative acts of Eros. Out of destruction and preservation we achieve acts of creation, and
this process is unending. Nietzsche would rightfully object to this analysis, and I do not think
that these phenomena would constitute a truly dialectical process. I think it would be more
accurate to say that it only appears to be a dialectical process; it does not meet any criteria to
actually constitute such a process.
I think that what the ego represents in our conceptual schematic is actually the
“psychology of the tragic poet” that Nietzsche discusses, i.e. the eternal affirmation of life
despite its inherently tragic foundation of suffering generated from cyclical acts of creation,
preservation, and destruction. Previously, we categorized the Apollonian, the superego and the
reality principle under preservation, and the Dionysian, the Id and the pleasure principle under
destruction. But I think my analysis has shown that, since the Apollonian and Dionysian
effectively subsume the Freudian concepts under each of the respective primary headings, what
we are left with are the components Nietzsche must have considered as relevant to “tragic”
psychology. The Apollonian works to moderate the Dionysian in essentially the same fashion as
the equivalent Freudian concepts do, it strips the Dionysian of its destructive and erotic
components and channels it into more creative pursuits, including art and the penultimate
creative act, procreation.

15. My thesis was that the psychoanalytic theories of Sigmund Freud and Friedrich
Nietzsche’s aesthetic theory of the Dionysian and Apollonian share a predilection for
preservative and destructive phenomena. I created a conceptual schematic to categorize key
conceptual components of those theories and provided an account of each component. I argued
that the three Freudian concepts under each of the primary headings could ultimately be reduced
to the single concept from Nietzsche. My conclusion was two pronged. First, I concluded that
although Eros subsumes both the reality principle and the superego as phenomena of self-
preservation, the Apollonian achieves this same explanatory power regarding preservation
without the need for additional conceptual components. Thus, Nietzsche’s concept of the
Apollonian is ultimately the superior explanatory mechanism for the preservative phenomena in
the human psyche. Second, I concluded that the discussion of the “tragic” psychology behind the
Dionysian is useful because it illustrates that, as a single concept, the Dionysian possesses at
least as much, explanatory power as Freud’s three concepts do. The Dionysian subsumes
Thanatos in much the same way as the Apollonian subsumes Eros. Thus, the explanatory
mechanisms of the Freudian terms categorized under the primary headings of preservation and
destruction, which are already subsumed under Thanatos and Eros, are also covered under the
Dionysian and Apollonian. This is not to claim that Freud’s theories are made moot, it is only to
claim that Nietzsche already covered much of the same conceptual territory and did so in a
comparatively more concise fashion. If my account is correct I think it demonstrates the superior
explanatory power of Nietzsche’s account without entirely denying the import of Freud’s
contribution to the later development of similar ideas.