Press "Enter" to skip to content

Nietzsche, Heidegger and creativity

In the course of preparing for a doctoral seminar on Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger, I was struck, once again, by the creative thinking on the part of these epoch-making figures, as well as its implications for creativity. Freud’s creativity is evident, to mention only one thing, in the fact that, as far as I know, he was the first thinker (with the possible exceptions of Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill) who understood that women are subjectivised — that is, become human subjects — along a very different psychic trajectory compared to men. Until Freud, whenever a philosopher wrote about human subjects, it was without any subject-differentiation between men and women, and what was meant when they referred to people as “rational” beings, was usually “men as rational beings”.

In addition to this there is Freud’s systematic and theoretically creative exploration, if not invention, of the unconscious. He was not the first to talk about it; the romantics of the 19th century did so before him, as did his contemporary, Nietzsche. But his theoretical elaboration on it throughout his life, frequently revising his theory in the light of his clinical experience, meant that he founded a new science, albeit a controversial one, almost single-handedly. Within the available space, here I want to concentrate on Nietzsche and Heidegger’s work, however, and mainly on certain inventive aspects of Nietzsche’s earliest work, The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music and what is, for me, the most important text ever written by Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art” (OWA).

At the heart of Nietzsche’s youthful work there is a question that might be formulated as follows: Is there a way of making life bearable? In a way it is a response to Nietzsche’s predecessor, Arthur Schopenhauer’s contention, that life is absurd because we are at the mercy of the blind world will, constantly driving us to satisfy desire after desire, and never coming to an end. Only the contemplation of art and, more enduringly, the practice of asceticism (eradicating all desires and needs), could assuage human suffering, according to the latter.

Because Nietzsche was already a professor of philology at the age of 24, it is not surprising that he turned to ancient Greek culture, in which he was passionately interested, to answer this question. While he agreed with Schopenhauer that life was essentially meaningless, in this early work one already sees the difference between the two – where Schopenhauer negated life, here Nietzsche already finds evidence of the affirmation of life among the ancient Greeks.

Ultimately he would become one of the most resolute champions of the affirmation of one’s own life, no matter how painful it might be.

The secret of the Greeks, alone among ancient nations, for Nietzsche, was that they found a way of mitigating the terrible truth, that the abyss of absurdity yawns before human beings at all times. Their achievement was that, unlike modern European culture (which is rationalistic to the core), the Greeks devised a cultural way of combining reason with instinct, in this way acknowledging that humans are not “pure” rational creatures, but are still rooted in nature. In short, we are animals, albeit animals capable of reason.

It is well-known that Nietzsche articulates this insight by employing the names of two Greek gods, namely Apollo and Dionysus, where the Apollonian principle corresponds to individuation, appearance, clarity, Greek epic poetry (the Iliad, pre-eminently) and the visual arts; in short, it represented reason. Dionysus, on the other hand, stood for the arts of music and dance, as well as for the instincts and the “loss of self” through ecstatic intoxication. In passing one may note the analogy between these and Freud’s psychic structures of the ego and the id, respectively.

What makes of this such a creative insight into the preconditions for a viable, vitally creative culture, is Nietzsche’s grasp of the deleterious effects of hyper-rationalisation (the belief that humans are exclusively “rational” beings) on human culture. Denying one’s instinctual nature, for Nietzsche, is to pave the way for a culture’s deterioration, given that only the rational “face” of humanity is recognised and humanity’s mortal oneness with the rest of nature is covered up. The same holds for acknowledging only the Dionysian principle; without Apollonian form-giving to mitigate Dionysian loss of self, life would be unbearable. The genius of the Greeks was that they paid homage to both principles, the Apollonian and the Dionysian, and they did this pre-eminently through ancient Greek tragedy, particularly the tragedies of Sophocles and Aeschylus.

As some readers may know, the word “tragedy” literally means “goatsong” in ancient Greek, which is an allusion to the fact that the chorus in the performance of a tragedy consists of actors disguised as satyrs – creatures half human and half goat – who comment, accompanied by music, on the tragic events as they unfold. Moreover, their appearance stressed the fact that humans are half-cultural, half-natural beings. What one saw onstage as dramatic action was the shining Apollonian “dream” of culture and reason, counterpoised by the appearance, but more importantly, the singing and chanting, “tragic” commentary by the Dionysian satyrs, which reminded spectators that their Apollonian existence was but a brief earthly sojourn before returning to the all-embracing matrix of nature.

It was their creative Apollonian existence that made the terrible Dionysian truth bearable, that everyone born from sexual union has to die – something graphically embodied in music’s rhythmic rise and fall. At the heart of Nietzsche’s understanding of Greek culture there is therefore what one might call a creative “tension” between two forces – the Apollonian and the Dionysian – and if one of these two forces were to collapse into the other, the creative impulse would be adversely affected.

In Heidegger’s OWA one finds a similar tension, this time located in artworks themselves, (and ultimately in language). I cannot reconstruct the entire, thoughtful argument of OWA here, so it will have to suffice to focus on the creative tension between what Heidegger calls “world” and “earth”, the two reciprocally constitutive elements in every artwork, from paintings and architecture to films and literature. These two indispensable aspects of artworks entail a rejection of Aristotle’s two corresponding principles, namely, matter and form, which the latter believed applied to everything from stones and trees to people and artworks.

Heidegger demonstrates that form and matter may indeed help one understand the functioning of equipment like hammers and chisels – the “form” (or essence; not shape) of what it means to be a hammer is entirely fused with its “matter”, or the material that gives it an individual, functional appearance. The more matter “disappears” into form, the better the equipment works, which is why a good hammer is not an artwork. If it were, it would resist functioning.

“World” and “earth” mean something different. “World”, which is the counterpart of Aristotle’s “form”, denotes the aspect of interpretability in artworks – the fact that a “world” of meanings is “set up” and “preserved” in an artwork; think of the way that Pieter Bruegel’s Netherlandish Proverbs preserves the world of Dutch culture as it existed centuries ago, or how Homer’s Iliad does so regarding the ancient, pre-philosophical Greek world.

“Earth”, which corresponds with Aristotle’s “matter”, on the other hand, does not “disappear” into the artwork the way that matter disappears into tools if they are well made. On the contrary, “earth” only shows itself as a kind of internal limit to “world”, that is, as something that has to be acknowledged, but resists interpretation, like the colours in an Albers painting, or the grain in a sculpture made of wood. For Heidegger “earth” is that which shows itself, paradoxically, as withdrawing itself from human scrutiny (unlike “world”), and as such it instantiates the earth, which simply “is”, uncreated by humans, and has to be respected for that.

As in the case of Nietzsche’s Apollonian and Dionysian principles, “world’ and “earth” stand in a creative tension with each other. Heidegger calls it an unresolved “struggle”, which keeps the artwork in existence. Remove one of them, and there is no artwork. This, I submit, teaches us something invaluable about creativity as something that is only possible on the basis of countervailing forces.


  • As an undergraduate student, Bert Olivier discovered Philosophy more or less by accident, but has never regretted it. Because Bert knew very little, Philosophy turned out to be right up his alley, as it were, because of Socrates's teaching, that the only thing we know with certainty, is how little we know. Armed with this 'docta ignorantia', Bert set out to teach students the value of questioning, and even found out that one could write cogently about it, which he did during the 1980s and '90s on a variety of subjects, including an opposition to apartheid. In addition to Philosophy, he has been teaching and writing on his other great loves, namely, nature, culture, the arts, architecture and literature. In the face of the many irrational actions on the part of people, and wanting to understand these, later on he branched out into Psychoanalysis and Social Theory as well, and because Philosophy cultivates in one a strong sense of justice, he has more recently been harnessing what little knowledge he has in intellectual opposition to the injustices brought about by the dominant economic system today, to wit, neoliberal capitalism. His motto is taken from Immanuel Kant's work: 'Sapere aude!' ('Dare to think for yourself!') In 2012 Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University conferred a Distinguished Professorship on him. Bert is attached to the University of the Free State as Honorary Professor of Philosophy.


  1. Joel Headlight Joel Headlight 16 February 2015

    Art as temporal recognition & then the spatial simulation of Schizophrenia.

    Therefore, Art as an erstwhile Entity or Deity emphatically medicated or civilised into the asylum, religion or social exile

  2. Rod MacKenzie Rod MacKenzie 16 February 2015

    Hi Bert wonderful thought provoking piece. In terms of term usage I get the difference between form and shape for the purposes of the Aristotlean debate, but I do get confused when – within the same context – the use of form (essence) and “content” (surely also….essence, so what is the distinction, or is it a term in a discourse separate to Aristotle and yorur article? . I am currently reading The Age of Nothing: How we have sought to live since the death of God by Peter Watson which covers similar ground to your article of course, and he starts with Nietzsche. It is a wonderful book and i am thinking of doing a sort of review of it for TL (sort of as I wouldnt presume to say I have the philospohical tools to truly critique it).

  3. Vince Clancy Vince Clancy 17 February 2015

    An attempt to make everything complicated??? We are born, not of our choice but of nature’s, we live mostly by our choice(if we get to the stage of life where we are able to think), and we die, mostly not of our choice, but of nature’s. It is where we have our choice that we have the ability to be happy(or otherwise) in whatever we choose to live. If we realize that we are merely part of nature and nothing infinite in it, AND, that everyone else is in the same boat, AND that we can love ourselves and our neighbors, then possibly some good can result. Basically, to quote Nietzsche: “Amor Fati—”Love Your Fate,” which is in fact your life”.

  4. Joel Fairstein Joel Fairstein 17 February 2015

    A good article, but these aspects of Nietzsche and Heidegger seem irrelevant to the majority of humans. On the supposed chasm of meaninglessness, this only applies to a few tormented intellectuals. And the supposed disaster of Apollonian without Dionysian life and vice versa is an artificial duality that is remote from everyday living, an imbalance which couldn’t be remedied in a purposeful way by a real human being.

    Is Heidegger simply redefining the terms media and content within works of art and passing it off as something profound? And just where is the tension between these?

  5. Doom Doom 17 February 2015

    In artificial intelligence specifically in expert system
    research you also find the dichotomy between the Dionysian (creative)
    perspective and the Apollonian (logical) perspective. In trying to make an
    expert system one must try and take the knowledge that a human expert has and put it into a robot, sounds simple enough but it is not.

    Experts are assumed to be Apollonian in nature but it turns out that experts are rather very Dionysian. To be an expert one needs to stop thinking logically, this is to say abandon systematic thought and embrace creative thinking, leaps in logic that are inexplicable hence the difficulty in creating expert systems. The really interesting thing however is that to be an expert one needs to start off thinking in
    Apollonian terms, systematic and logic and then transition to thinking in
    Dionysian terms. What this research agenda has taught us is that the dichotomy
    between the Apollonian and the Dionysian is false in fact these two are opposite
    sides of the same coin.

    Another point that emphasises the interconnectedness of
    the Apollonian and the Dionysian perspective is enkrateia (Apollonian) the
    opposite of akrasia (Dionysian), akrasia is weakness of will something we are
    all often warned against while enkrateia the inverse, too much control and lack
    of spontaneity is often something we are told to strive for, yet enkrateia is
    also as bad as akrasia.

  6. Bert Bert 18 February 2015

    Joel – Someone as “with-it” as Manuel Castells (in The Network Society) provides a fascinating sociological analysis of the meaninglessness that obtains in contemporary societies because of the systematic denial of death, which is essentially what Nietzsche was writing about. I believe Heidegger’s “redefinition” – or perhaps rather rethinking – of Aristotle’s matter and form is profound, especially regarding the ecological implications it has for the earth. In the work of art the “earth” principle paradoxically shows itself as “self-withdrawing”, Heidegger says, which is a way in which the earth refuses to submit to human scrutiny beyond the meanings that may attach to it in the openness of “world”.
    Rod – Generally, “essence” corresponds with “form” in the Aristotelian sense. The form of a thing, say, a cat, is its essence, or what makes it distinct from a dog. “Content” corresponds roughly with Aristotle’s “matter”. That sounds like an interesting book; I’ll look out for it. It is amazing how few people realize that we live in an entirely nihilistic age, which is exacerbated by the sway of capitalism, insofar as it never allows anything to have, or retain, a kind of “intrinsic” meaning, but constantly redefines it in the interest of novelty in the marketplace and of making profit. As Marx observed, “All that is solid melts into air”.

  7. Rod MacKenzie Rod MacKenzie 18 February 2015

    Bert, you say “It is amazing how few people realize that we live in an entirely nihilistic age” agreed. And Watson’s The Age of Nothing does work a lot with that, I think. The discussion of WB Yeats struggle to reconcile materialism,matter and a new spirituality (post-Blavatsky as well) is most enriching, and the discussion of Nietzsche and his relation to nihilism, th Romantics, the church, the politics of the time, were all enriching and fascinating. The key word for me is “enriching”.

  8. Bert Bert 19 February 2015

    Doom – Fantastic comment, thanks! You probably know that Nietzsche abandoned the Apollonian in his later work, but not the Dionysian, into which the Apollonian was assimilated because he, too, probably realized that the Dionysian cycle of creation/destruction already includes what he had thought of as Apollonian at first. But my point about creativity requiring a struggle or tension between two forces stands – it was later located within the Dionysian by Nietzsche. Your formulation in terms of the Greek terms enkrateia (empowerment) and akrasia (weakening) stresses the same point I tried to make about this tension or struggle.

  9. atkins atkins 25 February 2015

    I know that I am a bit late joining this discussion, but I take a slightly different view. Yes, the Greek understanding of the dual nature of man as belonging to the earth but also aspiring to more is very helpful, but these philosophers have not fully embraced the key dilemma. In dealing with the meaninglessness and absurdity of life (when one takes things to their logical conclusions), the “answers” sought are still within the same system. If, in our physical universe, we are reduced to absurdity, why seek more of the same? The existentialists (secular or “religious”) and the philosophic use of mind-altering drugs have a mirror-image problem – they seek a non-rational “answer” to validate life, but they do so by abandoning the rationality of everyday life, and of coherent communication. They do not seek answers ‘from beyond” that can correlate with normal life (they have an a priori assumption that this is not possible). But that quest ends also in despair (bravely chiselling out fragments of meaning or the illusion of meaning in the face of meaninglessness is no answer at all).
    So, if rationality ends in despair, and if abandoning rationality for “upper story” experiences is equally pointless, and if the one big clue that each of us has says that neither of these outcomes is valid, then the really logical thing to do is to examine our assumptions. That clue, by the way is our “nature” (our man-ness for want of a better word) that seeks meaning and seeks to communicate it coherently.
    So, we should challenge the assumption that it is not possible to reconcile rationality and meaning, beauty, love, etc. We should seek a way from within our finitude to experience or interact with the infinite – going beyond rationality, but not abandoning it.
    Of course, what I am advocating is the one (boring old) answer that most philosophers have explicitly rejected – but hey, if you have taken things to their logical conclusion and nothing works, then maybe your assumptions are not all correct…

  10. Deirdre Kohler Deirdre Kohler 30 March 2015

    Hi Bert (and Doom)

    I have noticed (in the workplace) that humans are just not “rational” rather everything is an opinionated compromise usually leaning towards those with power (in its various forms), under the auspices of it being the “logical answer”. (Does this lend itself to Foucalt’s view of power?)

    I suppose it may be difficult to define what reason/logic is/isn’t, point being, in my view I don’t see it.

    Realising that everything is “irrational” at work and mostly power based has made my life so much easier. It would make sense, to me as an irrational human, that we cannot put logic and power in the same place, they polar opposites? So if all humans posses power …

    Maybe humans like tech/AI for the very reason… its logical and they not?


Leave a Reply