“Never yet hath there been a Superman. Naked have I seen both of them, the greatest man and the smallest man: All-too-similar are they still to each other. Verily, even the greatest found I - all-too-human!”
[TSZ, Of the Priests.]
This assertion is blatantly contradicted by one of Nietzsche’s later writings, The Antichrist or Antichristian (the German may mean both). And this is significant, because Nietzsche himself inextricably ties it to TSZ in its preface:
“This book belongs to the very few. Perhaps not one of them is even living yet. Maybe they will be the readers who understand my Zarathustra”.
[The Antichrist(ian), Preface.]
Now the passages that contradict the above assertion of Zarathustra are the following:
“The problem I […] pose is not what shall succeed mankind in the sequence of living beings (— man is an end —): but WHAT TYPE OF MAN shall be bred, shall be willed, for being higher in value, worthier of life, more certain of a future.
Even in the past THIS HIGHER TYPE has appeared often: but as a fortunate accident, as an exception, never as something willed.”
[AC 3, with added emphasis.]
And:
“Mankind does not represent a development toward something better or stronger or higher, in the sense accepted today. “Progress” is merely a modern idea, that is, a false idea. The European of today is vastly inferior in value to the European of the Renaissance; further development is altogether not according to any necessity in the direction of elevation, enhancement, or strength.
In another sense, success in individual cases is constantly encountered in the most widely different places and cultures; here we really do find A HIGHER TYPE: WHICH IS, in relation to mankind as a whole, A KIND OF OVERMAN [Ãœbermensch]. Such fortunate accidents of great success have always been possible and will perhaps always be possible. And even whole families, tribes, or peoples may occasionally represent such a bull’s-eye.”
[AC 4, added emphasis.]
I do not doubt that the “higher type” mentioned in section 3 is the same higher type as is mentioned in section 4; and which is called there “a kind of Overman”. Why does Nietzsche say “a kind of Overman” and not simply “an Overman”? - This is the first and only time in the book where Nietzsche uses the coinage “Ãœbermensch”. This means he has to explain it to those who don’t know the term. This he does by the parenthesis “in relation to mankind as a whole”. In relation to mankind as a whole, this type is a kind of “Overman” - that is, it ranks above mankind as a whole, above the average and even the somewhat above-average man: it is hierarchically “over man”.
Now why does Zarathustra say there has never been an Overman? He later even contradicts this himself, by his teaching of the eternal recurrence: according to this, if there has never been an Overman there never will be one either, so the earth will forever be meaningless. But this is not what Nietzsche means in The Antichrist(ian). He is not saying that “a kind of Overman” has already existed in the very distant past, which is the relatively near future; he’s saying this higher type has already existed in history, that is, in the relatively near past. So why does Zarathustra say there has never been an Overman?
My solution is that when Zarathustra mentions “the greatest man” in his speech Of the Priests, he does not mean the greatest an literally but the so-called greatest man. I found the clue that led to this solution in another speech in the same part:
“And ye wise and knowing ones, ye would flee from the solar-glow of the wisdom in which the Superman joyfully batheth his nakedness!
Ye highest men who have come within my ken! this is my doubt of you, and my secret laughter: I suspect ye would call my Superman - a devil!
Ah, I became tired of those highest and best ones: from their “height” did I long to be up, out, and away to the Superman!
A horror came over me when I saw those best ones naked: then there grew for me the pinions to soar away into distant futures.”
[TSZ, Part 2, Of Manly Prudence.]
Though he does not say “greatest” but “highest” and “best” men, he again uses the simile (is it merely a simile?) of nakedness. It was his seeing these “best” or “greatest” ones naked (and both words belong between quotation marks!) that aroused in him the longing for the Overman. But compare another speech, Of the Rabble (also from part 2):
“What hath happened unto me? How have I freed myself from loathing? Who hath rejuvenated mine eye? How have I flown to the height where no rabble any longer sit at the wells?
Did my loathing itself create for me wings and fountain-divining powers? Verily, to the loftiest height had I to fly, to find again the well of delight!
Oh, I have found it, my brethren! Here ON THE LOFTIEST HEIGHT bubbleth up for me the well of delight! And there is a life at whose waters none of the rabble drink with me!
Almost too violently dost thou flow for me, thou fountain of delight! And often emptiest thou the goblet again, in wanting to fill it!
And yet must I learn to approach thee more modestly: far too violently doth my heart still flow towards thee:
My heart on which my summer burneth, my short, hot, melancholy, over-happy summer: how my summer heart longeth for thy coolness!
Past, the lingering distress of my spring! Past, the wickedness of my snowflakes in June! Summer have I become entirely, and summer-noontide!
A summer on the loftiest height, with cold fountains and blissful stillness: oh, come, my friends, that the stillness may become more blissful!
For THIS IS OUR HEIGHT AND OUR HOME: too high and steep do we here dwell for all uncleanly ones and their thirst.
Cast but your pure eyes into the well of my delight, my friends! How could it become turbid thereby! It shall laugh back to you with its purity.
On the tree of the future build we our nest; eagles shall bring us lone ones food in their beaks! Verily, no food of which the impure could be fellow-partakers! Fire, would they think they devoured, and burn their mouths!”
Zarathustra and his friends, who can bathe their nakednesses joyfully [mit Lust] in the well of delight [Born der Lust]: are these not Overmen? Perhaps his friends are not: and this is why Zarathustra says, in part 3;
““Why so hard!” — said to the diamond one day the charcoal; “are we then not near relatives?” — Why so soft? O my brethren; thus do I ask you: are ye then not — my brethren?
Why so soft, so submissive and yielding? Why is there so much negation and abnegation in your hearts? Why is there so little fate in your looks?
And if ye will not be fates and inexorable ones, how can ye one day — conquer with me?
And if your hardness will not glance and cut and chip to pieces, how can ye one day — create with me?
For the creators are hard. And blessedness must it seem to you to press your hand upon millenniums as upon wax, —
Blessedness to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass, — harder than brass, nobler than brass. Entirely hard is only the noblest.
This new table, O my brethren, put I up over you: Become hard!”
[Of Old and New Tables, 29.]
Of course it can be objected to this reading that even if Zarathustra is an Overman, Zarathustra - Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, at least - is a literary character, not a historical personage. To parry this objection it is necessary to quote one last passage:
“The halcyon, the light feet, the omnipresence of malice and exuberance, and whatever else is typical of the type of Zarathustra, — none of this has ever before been dreamed of as essential to greatness.”
[Ecce Homo, Zarathustra, 6.]
Now we see why Zarathustra said there had never been an Overman. The Overman had never been thought of as an Overman; that which had been thought of as essential to greatness was still human, all-too-human - not human, Superhuman.
And when Nietzsche says “never” here, what he means is “almost never”; even as he often says “morality” when he only means slave or herd morality. For master morality is rare; only a few are masters. They are the exceptions; and Nietzsche means the Overman has not, as a rule, been thought of as great…
I disagree. This is precisely what self actualisation or authenticity consists of- adapting yourself to your particular zeitgeist. Authenticity consist of manipulating yourself and your environment such that you ‘fit in’ find your niche or whichever cliche you wish to use; one’s facticity is always a given. It is not a case of isolating yourself and becoming an aryan race of superbeings, cut off form the rest of the world (although if one felt it their authentic destiny to do so then so be it), but Nietzsche, Sartre, Heidegger all speak of this notion related to your facticity. For Heidegger this is being-with the they (authentically) rather than being-for (inauthentically), Nietzsche it is just a part of ‘becoming who you are’.
.