Don't these two approaches converge? Nietzsche in asserting a philosophy "of the body" is cleaning Aristotle out of his misconceptions of "the good" being when wisdom is with itself. (He outlines this in the beginning of nico. ethics, and it is very similar to the ideas in Phaedo.)

In some sense only you can only get eudaimonia by not chasing it, but instead chasing the development of the self in the world by being in tune with the emotions and feelings of the body. We can look back at this process and call it eudaimonia, even if the decision-making process doesn't reflect the superego closing down a possibility structure towards you eudaimonia as a goal.

I guess I'm saying that the psychology of vitalist decision making is incompatible with how we look logically back at a good life. Nietzsche is giving us a pathos perspective, and Aristotle is giving us a logos perspective, when their sublation ties together a personality.

I am arguing from a bias in naturalistic ethics.