Who is the Ubermensch?

Time, Truth, and Woman in Nietzsche

Author(s): Keith Ansell-Pearson
Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1992), pp. 309-331
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709876
Accessed: 07/11/2010 08:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org
 Who is the Ubermensch?
Time,
Truth,and Woman in
Nietzsche
KeithAnsell-Pearson

"Interpretation"

Interpreting
myself,I alwaysread
Myselfintomywritings. I clearlyneed
Somehelp.Butall whoclimbon theirownway
Carrymyimage,too,intothebreaking day.*

I. Introduction

In this essay I seek to examine the question of the identityof

Nietzsche'sUbermensch in thelightoftheintellectual
revolution
brought
about in our understanding Withits notions
of textsby deconstruction.
oftextuality, themetaphoricity
interpretation, oflanguage,and theunde-
cidabilityof philosophicaldiscourse,deconstruction
has radicalizedthe
way in whichwe construequestionsofauthorship.I shall drawfreelyon

* F. Nietzsche,"Joke,Cunning,and Revenge,"Preludein GermanRhymes,The Gay

Science(1882). I wouldliketo expressmygratitudeto theExecutiveEditor,Allan Megill,
and RichardSchachtfortheircommentson earlierdraftsofthisessay,whichenabledme
to givegreaterclarityand focusto myargument.I am deeplyindebtedto twofinereaders
of Nietzsche,Daniel Conwayand David Owen,fortheirencouragement ofmyworkand
forsharingtheirown readingswithme. I would also like to acknowledgethe generous
assistanceoftheGermanAcademicExchangeService(DAAD), whoseawardofa scholar-
ship enabled me to carry out researchinto Nietzsche's writingsat the Kirchliche
HochschuleBerlinunderthegenerousguidanceofProfessorDr. WolfgangMuller-Lauter
in theSummerof 1990.Finally,I shouldliketo thankMr. R. J.Hollingdaleforgenerously
assistingme in mytranslationoftheunpublishedmaterialfromtheperiodofthecomposi-
tion of Thus Spoke Zarathustra.An earlierversionof this essay was firstpresented,
throughthekindinvitation ofDavid Wood,at thefirstannualconferenceoftheNietzsche
of Warwickin April 1991.
Societyof Great Britainheld at the University

309

Copyright 1992 by JOURNALOF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS, INC.

310 KeithAnsell-Pearson

the writingsof JacquesDerrida, Luce Irigaray,and Sarah Kofman,to

illuminatethe puzzlingand contradictory statusof the Ubermensch in
Nietzsche.I want to show that to raise the questionof the identityof
the Ubermensch is also to raisefundamental questionsabout Nietzsche's
authorshipand its authority, about the natureof the "we" (his readers)
in his writings, and about the figureof womanin his conceptionof life.
It is to exploretheissue of how we are to read him,forby exploringthe
identityof the "over-man"we are exploringour own identityand the
possibilitiesof our own potentialpost-modern (post-"man")existence.
The notionofthe Ubermensch poses majorproblemsforanyonewho
wishesto come to gripswiththe paradoxesand tensionsof Nietzsche's
thought.Can his promotionof the idea of a humanity"beyond"(iber)
man be takenseriouslywhen much of his thinkingis premisedon the
convictionthatall modemidealswhichencouragehumanbeingsto sacri-
ficethe presentforthe futureare no more than relicsof our Christian
ascetic past, which have to be discreditedby subjectingthem to the
hammerof the philosopher?As Nietzscheinformshis readersin Ecce
Homo:
wouldbe to "improve"
ThelastthingI shouldpromise mankind. No newidols
areerectedbyme:lettheold oneslearnwhatfeetofclaymean.Overthrowing
idols(mywordfor"ideals")-thatcomescloserto beingpartofmycraft.One
has deprived ofitsvalue,itsmeaning,
reality to precisely
itstruthfulness, the
extent invented
to whichonehas mendaciously an idealworld.'

But in the chapteron the "Genealogy of Morals" in the same book,

Nietzscheexplainswhythe asceticideal,the ideal of Christianity which
teacheshumanbeingsto rejectearthlylifeand place all theirhopes and
dreamsin a supraterrestrialbeyond,held itsgripon thehumanspiritfor
so long. The reasonwas simplybecause a "counteridealwas lacking-
until Zarathustra."Is the "counterideal"offeredby Zarathustra(the
overman)merelyironic,simplya parodyofteachingsofredemption found
in the majorworld-religions?2
Anotherproblemaffecting the coherenceof Nietzsche'spositingof a
notionofthe Ubermensch arisesfromdetermining itspreciserelationship
to thedoctrineofeternalreturn.As farbackas GeorgSimmel,commenta-
torshavepointedoutthatthetwoprincipalteachingsofNietzsche'sThus
SpokeZarathustraseemto be fundamentally at odds witheach otherand
thatthis incompatibilityis evidenceof the incoherenceof much of his
philosophicalproject.For example,in his studyof 1907 Simmelargues

' F. Nietzsche,Ecce Homo, tr.WalterKaufmann(New York, 1967),preface,section

2.
2 An argumentof this kind can be foundin Daniel Conway's essay, "Overcoming
Nietzsche'sRevaluationof Values," Journalof theBritishSocietyfor
the Ubermensch:
20 (1989) 211-24.
Phenomenology,
Nietzsche'sUbermensch 311

thatit wouldappearthat"theinfinity oftheoverman's taskcannotbe

reconciled withthefinitude ofcosmicperiods"whichis presupposed in
thethought ofeternalreturn.As heputit,"within eachperiod, humanity
couldbe vestedwithonlya limited number offorms ofevolution, which
couldbe constantly repeated, whereastheidealoftheoverman demands
a straight lineofevolution headingtowardthefuture."3 Simmeltriesto
resolvethe apparentcontradiction betweenthetwo teachings by sug-
gesting thatthe"overman" is bestconstrued in termsofa Kantianas-if
whichtranscends thelimitations ofourpresent cognitive awareness. He
thusproposesthattheoverman is tobe understood "notas a rigidstruc-
turewithan absolutely determined content,but as a functional ideal
indicating thehumanformthatis superior tothepresent realone."4The
viewthatthe two majordoctrines of Zarathustra are incoherent has
recently beenmostforcefully expressed byErichHeller,whohasargued
thattheyarea "paradigm oflogicalincompatibility." Whereastheteach-
ing of the overmanis designedto inspireus to create"thenew,the
unique,andtheincomparable," thedoctrineofeternal return containsthe
crushing thought thatthesamewillreturneternally, and therefore all
creation is in vain.5
In hisinstructive readingofZarathustra LaurenceLamperthas sug-
gesteda wayofmovingbeyondtheapparent contradiction between the
twomainteachings ofthebookbyarguing thatitis necessary toreadthe
storyofZarathustra's descentor down-going (Untergang) to manas one
in whichtheinitialteaching oftheUbermensch declaredin theprologue
is progressively and decisively abandonedin thecourseofthebookin
favoroftheteaching ofeternalreturn. He writes, "It seemsto me that
one ofthegreatest singlecausesofthemisinterpretation ofNietzsche's
teaching is thefailureto see thattheclearlyprovisional teaching on the
superman is renderedobsoletebytheclearly definitiveteaching oneternal
return."6Lampertis opposedto any interpretation whichplacesthe
doctrine of theovermanat thecenterof Nietzsche'sthought because,
he argues,thisis to subjectthestoryofZarathustra's down-going to a

'G. Simmel,Schopenhauerand Nietzsche,tr. H. Loiskandtet. al. (Amherst,1986),

174.
4 Simmel,Schopenhauer and Nietzsche,ibid.
E. Heller, The Importanceof Nietzsche:Ten Essays (Chicago, 1988), 12. See
Nietzsche,The Gay Science,tr. W. Kaufmann(New York, 1974), section335: "We,
however,wantto becomethosewho we are-the oneswhoare new,unique,and incompa-
rable,who give themselveslaws, who createthemselves."Translationslightlychanged
fromKaufmann,and in accordancewiththe originalGerman.Kaufmannhas "human
beingswho are new,unique,and incomparable"(myemphasis).But we need to ask who
are these"humanbeings"ifnot the "ones" who are "overhuman"?I owe thisinsightto
Howard Caygill.See his excellentessay,"Affirmationand EternalReturnin the Free-
Spirit,"in K. Ansell-Pearson(ed.), Nietzscheand Modern GermanThought(London,
1991), 216-40,235.
6
LaurenceLampert,Nietzsche'sTeaching(New Haven, 1987),258.
312 KeithAnsell-Pearson

fundamental misreading whichimposeson it thewholenotionof the

eschatological fulfillment oftimethatZarathustra wishesto overcome; it
is to abandontheveryideathattheproblem ofhumanity liesin thefact
thatitis inneedofredemption. Zarathustra,heargues,overthrows what
thePersianprophetZoroasterhas bequeathed to humanity, namely,a
prophetic religionthatforcesearthly, mortalexistence to be livedand
endured "undertheterrible gravityofa futureDay ofJudgement inwhich
eternaldoomor eternalblisswillbe decreed."7
Despitetheillumination thesereadingsshedon thedifficulties and
tensions ofNietzsche's majornotionsand teachings, it is mybeliefthat,
likea greatdealoforthodox Nietzschescholarship, theyrestonan under-
standing ofhisphilosophy whichneglects andignoresthewayin which
Nietzsche's textsdeconstruct theirownclaimsto authority andputinto
questiontheidentity of authorand reader.It is onlywhenwe address
thesesortsofissuesthatthenatureofthecontradictions and paradoxes
whichanimateNietzsche's thought fullycometolight.To seektoexpose
thecontradictory natureofhismajordoctrines, suchas theoverman and
eternal return, is to mistake themforlogicaltruths whentheyneedtobe
readas powerful fictions or metaphors whichreferto experiences and
processes. It is a fundamental tenetofNietzsche's deconstruction ofphi-
losophy that"truth" is notsomething tobe "found"or"discovered," but
rather thatitis tobe "created"andis a "process":"introducing as
truth,
aprocessus ininfinitum, anactivedetermining-not a becoming-conscious
ofsomething thatis initself firmanddetermined. It is a wordforthe'will
to power.'"8 Nietzschedoesnotreadthetruth-claims ofphilosophy in
termsoftheirsupposedaccuratereflection ofreality as itis in-itself,
but
as "symptoms" of ascending or descending life.To readNietzschewe
needtolearnhowtoreadthetempoofhis"signs."According toNietzsche
himself, whatis requiredis an artwhichlies "beyond"thepowersof
"modern man"(moderner Mensch),namely, whathe callsin thepreface
to theGenealogy ofMoralsan "artof interpretation" (Auslegung).9In
otherwords,to be ableto readhimwe needto be notmoderner Mensch
but Ubermensch-or at leaston thebridgeto it.
II. Nietzsche's ArtofStyle"
"Multifarious
JacquesDerridahas placedthequestionofstyleat thecenterofan
ofNietzsche's
understanding "0 His claimis thattextsarenot
authorship.
7Lampert, Nietzsche'sTeaching,ibid.
8 Nietzsche,The WillTo Power,tr.R. J.Hollingdaleand W. Kaufmann(New York,
1969),section552.
9 Nietzsche,On theGenealogyofMorals,tr.Hollingdaleand Kaufmann(New York,
1967), preface,section8. It could be arguedthatin positing"life" as "will to power"
Nietzscheis beingnot merelymetaphoricalbut is claimingknowledgeabout "reality"as
it is in itself.The viewthata theoryof truthis indispensableto Nietzsche'sconcernshas
recently beenputforwardin a highlyinstructive mannerbyMaudemarieClark,Nietzsche
on Truthand Philosophy (Cambridge,1990).
10J. Derrida,Spurs:NietzscheStyles,tr.Barbara Harlow (Chicago 1979).
Nietzsche'sUbermensch 313

boundedbyauthorial intent,
whichmeansthattheirmeaning liesbeyond
themandis tobe constitutedbyan activereading.
Nietzscheis important
to Derrida'staskofdeconstructing
thelogocentric
andphallocentricbias
of thetradition of Westernmetaphysics because,in thewordsof one
he "provides... a styleof philosophicwritingwhichre-
commentator,
mainsintensely scepticalofall claimsto truth-itsownincluded-and
whichthusopensup thepossibility ofliberating thought fromitsage-old
conceptual limits."11I
On Nietzsche's readingofthetradition, philosophers
haveconsistently dupedtheiraudienceswithclaimsto the"Truth"by
effacing themetaphors whichconstitute theirwriting. Philosophy is thus
basedon a suppression ofitsownrootsinfigurative language. Whatthis
meansis thatphilosophy is based,amongstotherthings, on an uncon-
sciouslibidinal economy, a repression ofitsowndesires, anda disregard
forthequestionofstyle.The taskofdeconstruction is to undermine the
hierarchical oppositionson whichWesternmetaphysics has beenbuilt
(man/woman, reason/passion, logos/pathos, intelligible/sensible,etc.)
andopenup thediscourse ofphilosophy to a freeplayofsignsin which
new,morecomplex, hybrid identities can be created.It is not,however,
a questionof "all styleand no substance."A readingof ThusSpoke
Zarathustra demonstrates thispoint.
Thesignificance ofZarathustra, inwhichtheteaching oftheoverman
is developedat length, is thatit is in thisworkthatNietzsche explicitly
addresses thewholeproblem oftheauthority of(his)authorship. What
thebookattempts todramatize in the of
is, brief, impossibilitylegislating
autonomy. Thisexplains whythebookis subtitled "forall andnone."On
one occasionNietzschehas Zarathustra declarethatwhenhe is asked
about"theway"totruth andenlightenment, hisonlyhonestreplyis that
it is impossibleto speakofsucha way,for"theway"doesnotexist.12
Similarly, theteachings ofZarathustra do notaskfor"believers," foras
Nietzschehas hisheroask,ofwhatgoodor use is "belief'?Beliefhas
littleto do withtruth.Thus,Nietzschehas Zarathustra declareto his
disciples that only when they have rejected him and found theirown
uniqueandincomparable selveswillhe"return" tothem. 13 Atseveral key
placesintheunfolding ofthestoryofZarathustra's descent tohumanity,
Nietzsche hasZarathustra problematize thestatusofhisidentity byasking
a wholeseriesofquestions: is he a ploughshare? maybea fool?is he a
or
poet?ishea goodman?anevilman?ishea deceiver, a promiser,
a fulfiller,
a redeemer? Whator whoexactlyis he?14In thiswayNietzschekeeps
openthemeaningof thestoryand implicates thereaderin thebook's
truth-claims. The reader cannot remain neutral butmustrespondemo-

II C. Norris,Deconstruction,Theoryand Practice(London, 1982), 57.

12
Nietzsche,ThusSpokeZarathustra, tr.Hollingdale(Middlesex,1979),"Of theSpirit
of Gravity,"section2.
13 Ibid., "Of the BestowingVirtue,"section3.

14 Ibid., "Of Redemption."

314 KeithAnsell-Pearson

to the experiencesthat Zarathustra

tionally,viscerally,and reflexively
undergoes.To thisend the readermustlearnthe "art of interpretation"
in orderto read its "signs" and theirrhythmsand to engagewiththe
inward experienceit seeks to communicate.The question of style in
Nietzscheis inseparablefromthatof thesubstanceof his saying.On his
"art of style"Nietzschewritesin Ecce Homo:
To communicate a state,aninward ofpathos,
tension bymeansofsigns,including
thetempoofthesesigns-thatis themeaning ofeverystyle;andconsidering
that
largein mycase,I havemany
ofinwardstatesis exceptionally
themultiplicity
stylistic
possibilities-themostmultifarious
artofstylethathaseverbeenat the
disposalofoneman. I

Nietzscheoffers hisreadersa dazzlingarrayofstyles-essays,aphorisms,

polemics,parables,and poems-which offernot one "Truth"but many
experiencesand manytruths.
Unliketheembittered and vengeful Rousseau,who in hisReveriesofa
SolitaryWalkercan onlyesteemhisownsenseofselfhoodbycondemning
humanityat large,Nietzschedoes not take his revengeupon humanity
forneglectinghim but insteadspeaks of his art of stylein termsof a
"'squandering."1I6All hiswritings,he tellsus,are designedas "fish-hooks,"
but is it his faultif thereare no fish?17Nietzsche'sgiftof writing,of
communication, springsfroman overflowing, abundantfecundityand
strength. What is made of them,whatinterpretations theyprovoke,and
whatkindof readerstheysolicitare beyondNietzsche'scontrol.And so
he tellshis lifeto himself-notout ofresentment butout ofthanksgiving,
as the "Yes of Amen" to life as the eternallyself-creating and self-
destroying wheel,to lifeas will to power,and to the ringof recurrence
whichis "eternity," which,in turn,is "woman."Nietzschedoes nothave
Zarathustraenunciatethislast "truth"but singit:

NeveryetdidI findthewomanbywhomI wantedchildren, unlessit

be thiswoman,whomI love:forI lovethee,0 Eternity!
For I lovethee,0 Eternity!18

15
Nietzsche,Ecce Homo, "Why I WriteSuch Good Books," section4.
16
See, forexample,J. J. Rousseau, Reveriesof a SolitaryWalker,tr. Peter France
(Middlesex,1979),27 and 30: "So nowI am alonein theworld,withno brother, neighbour,
or friend.... The mostsociableand lovingof men withone accord been cast out by all
therest.... But I, detachedas I am fromthemand therestoftheworld,whatam I? ...
My fellow-men mightreturnto me, but I should no longerbe thereto meetthem." It
shouldbe noted,however,thatNietzschedoes recognizethatthe "greatestdanger"he
facesis thesame one whichseducedRousseau: disgustat "man." See Ecce Homo, "Why
I am So Wise," section5.
17 Nietzsche,Ecce Homo, "BeyondGood and Evil," 310.

18 Nietzsche,Zarathustra,"The SevenSeals (or: The SongofYes and Amen"),section

2.
Nietzsche'sUbermensch 315

III. The Returnof the Overmanand the Time of Return

In the prologueto the workZarathustradescendsto humanityafter

tenyearsofsolitudeand announcesthatmanis something to be overcome
(uberwunden).Zarathustrateachesthe Ubermensch, whichis to be the
meaningof theearthaftertheeventof thedeathof God. Withtheforce
of a categoricalimperative,Zarathustraspeaksthus:

... Theovermanshallbe themeaningoftheearth!

I entreat
you,mybrethren, remaintruetotheearth,anddo not
hopes!...
believethosewhospeakto youofsupra-terrestrial

I wantto teachhumanbeingsthemeaningoftheirbeing:whichis
theoverman, fromthedarkcloudofman'9
thelightning

But in orderto go overor across (ibergehen)it is necessarythatwe

firstlearnhow to go underor perish(untergehen). There has neveryet
been an Ubermensch, Zarathustrasays,forman has yetto learnhowto
go under.When we do go underwe experience"the hour of the great
contempt,"thehourin whichour presenthappiness,reason,pity,justice,
and virtuegrowloathsometo us.20In thediscourseentitled"Of theWay
oftheCreator"in book one,Zarathustradeclaresthathe lovestheperson
who "wants to createbeyond(uber) himself,and thus perishes."As I
shall argue,it is throughthe teachingof eternalreturnthatZarathustra
showshowonecan learnto go under.It is thedoctrineofreturn, therefore,
thatprovides the bridge (the way) across (iber) to the overman. At the
same timethe visionof the Ubermensch is designedto inspirein human
beingsa desirefortheexperienceofdown-goingand beyond(iber) man.
However,the bridgeto the overmandoes not lead to the "way" but to
manyways.In section335 of The GayScienceNietzschespeaksofa "we"
who must"become thosethattheyare: the ones who are new,unique,
and incomparable,who give themselveslaws and create themselves."
The significance of the doctrineof eternalreturnis thatit represents a
radicalizationof Kant's categoricalimperative in so faras it establishes
the conditionsfor a trulyindividualact of willing(self-legislation as
The eternalreturnprovidestheformofuniversality
self-creation). associ-
ated withthe categoricalimperativeonlyin the act of returning, while
whatreturns (thecontent) cannotbe universal,as each individual'sexperi-
ence of lifeis unique. AlthoughKant's formulation of the categorical
imperativeis oftenaccused of formalism,it does presupposethat the

19
Ibid., Prologue,sections3 and 7.
20 Ibid., section3.
316 KeithAnsell-Pearson

contents of one's act of willing,whatever theymightproveto be, are

capableofbeinguniversalized so as to applyto all rationalbeings.The
willingcontained in thethought-experiment and testof eternalreturn,
however, is one"beyondgoodandevil."Theprologue ends,forexample,
withZarathustra declaringthatwhatheseeksis notdisciples butcompan-
ions,whomhecalls"fellow-creators andrejoicers."He shallnotbeherds-
manto theherdbutinsteadshallteachbywayofexample:"I willshow
themtherainbowand thestairway to theUbermensch.''21
For decadesnow,generations ofEnglish-speaking commentators on
Nietzschehavewrestled withtheproblemofhowbestto translate the
wordUbermensch. Thequestion whichanynewreaderofNietzsche wants
to askis: whatis meantbythetermUbermensch? Is it,forexample,the
typeofbeinginpossession ofsuperhuman powers,thesuperman oflegend,
or is it thesymbolof thehumanity of thefuture whichhas overcome
thenihilism of themodemepochand theworld-weariness of modem
humanity? In EcceHomoNietzsche statesthatthenotionofUbermensch
is notinanywaytobe conceived alongDarwinian linesoras representing
a transcendental idealofman.22 The Ubermensch is thusnotan idealthat
is positedintermsofan infinite future beyondthereachofmeremortals;
itis not"super"or"above"(uber)inthissense."I lovehim,"Zarathustra
says,"whojustifies thehumanity ofthefutureandredeems thehumanity
ofthepast,forhe wantsto perishbythehumanity ofthepresent."23 To
the last menwho are gatheredin the market-place, bemusedby the
madmanwhoannounces thedeathof God, thepersonwhostrivesfor
something higher andnoblerwillalwaysappearas "superhuman." What
I thinkthisshowsis thatNietzsche, as WalterKaufmann pointedouta
longtimeagoinhisclassicstudyof1950,is playing withtheconnotations

21 Ibid., section9. I examinethe connectionbetweenthe categoricalimperative and

eternalreturnin more detail in chapterfiveof my book, NietzschecontraRousseau
(Cambridge,1991),especially194-200.
22 Nietzsche,Ecce Homo, "Why I Write Such Good Books," section 1. I am not
persuadedby BerndMagnus'sreasonsfornottranslating the Ubermensch as "overman"
givenin his essay,"Overman:An Attitudeor an Ideal?" in D. Goicoechea, The Great
Year of Zarathustra(1881-1981)(New York, 1983), 142-65.Moreover,his claim,made
on page 144,thattheGermanword Ubermensch" shouldbe retainedin English-speaking
discussionsbecause it is non-sexistsimplypresupposesand assumes what needs to be
demonstrated. As I hope thisessay shows,a greatdeal can be learnedabout the notion
by translating it as "overman"and playingwiththe connotationsof the word "uber."
Fullytoappreciatetheidea ithas tobe understoodinthemuchwidercontextofNietzsche's
writings fora new,artisticpost-modern
and theirattemptto locatethepossibilities Mensch.
The key passage here is thaton "modernerMensch" in section8 to the prefaceof the
Genealogyof Morals. For further insightsee Michael Newman,"Reading the futureof
genealogy:Kant, Nietzsche,Plato," in K. Ansell-Pearson(ed.), Nietzscheand Modern
GermanThought(London, 1991), 257-82.
23
Nietzsche,Zarathustra,Prologue,section4.
Nietzsche'sUbermensch 317

oftheword"uber"(across,over,beyond).24 He is trying toshowthatthe

desireforchangewithin theselfinvolves botha process oftheoldperishing
(an Untergang ofthepresent) andofthenewstriving to be brought into
existence (an Ubergang to thefuture). It is a questionof givingbirth,
ofchild-bearing. The important questionconcerns howthismoment of
self-transformation and sacrifice oftheselfis to be constituted and how
onecan experience timein a waythatis freeofresentment.
Withthenotionof the Ubermensch, therefore, Nietzschedoes not
intend Zarathustra toteachsomething utterly fantastical.In thediscourse
ofZarathustra entitled"OftheAfterworldsmen," forexample, Zarathus-
trasaysthathe teachesa "newwill"whichis designed to teachhuman
beingsto desirenot a new pathbut the one thattheyhave hitherto
followed butblindly andto "callitgood."It is thusa question oflearning
howto becomewhatwe are,ofundergoing a processoftransfiguration.
In thediscourse entitled "On theBlissful Islands"whichappearsat the
beginning ofparttwoofthework,Zarathustra saysthatweshouldreach
no further thanour "creating will":"Could youcreatea god?-So be
silentaboutall gods!Butyoucouldsurelycreatetheoverman."
It is inthediscourse on "Redemption" (Erlosung) towards theendof
thesecondpartor act thatZarathustra intimates thedoctrine ofeternal
return. In thisdiscourse we witness Zarathustra searching fora doctrine
whichwillteachthehumanwillthatit is a willto power(Machtas in
machen-tomakeor create),thatis, a creative and legislative will.The
greatproblemof thewillis thatit is overwhelmed by theburdenand
weight ofthepastwhichcastsa darkshadowoverthefuture. Thehuman
willfeelsimpotent inthefaceofwhathasbeen,foritrecognizes thatone
cannotchangewhatis past.It thusseesitself as a victimofthepastand
in a fitofrageittakesrevenge on life.Thewill'smostlonelyaffliction is
thatitcannotwillbackwards andbreaktime'slawofchange,becoming,
and movement. "The spiritofrevenge," Zarathustra announces in this
keydiscourse, "thatup to nowhas beenmankind's chief concern;and
wheretherewassuffering, therewasalwayssupposedtobe punishment."
Zarathustra thusseeksa doctrine whichwillliberatethewillfromits
fixation on thepastwhichenslavesit to a moralworld-order of guilt,
punishment, andrevenge. Whatherequires isa doctrine whichwillrestore
forhumanity the"innocence ofbecoming," thatis,theviewofexistence
whichis able to recognize thatultimately lifeis without meaningand
beyond justification;orrather, thatlifeitselfcontains within it,within its
eternal movement ofcreation of and
anddestruction,change development,

24 Psychologist,
See W. Kaufmann,Nietzsche.Philosopher, (4th ed.,
and Anti-Christ
Princeton,1974), 308.
318 KeithAnsell-Pearson

of pleasureand pain,ofjoy and suffering, its ownjustification.25 The

meaning oflifeis to be foundnowhere butwithinlifeitselfas we liveit
andshallliveit.Butinsteadofsuchan insight cripplingus,weshouldbe
inspired byit-to theextentthatwe are able to affirm unconditionally
theeternal return ofallthemoments ofourexistence becausewerecognize
thateveryoneofthosemoments is necessary to whowe are.
Thecentral teaching ofpartthree, andarguably ofNietzsche's Diony-
sianphilosophy, is thatofeternalreturn. It is out oftheexperience of
return thattheoverman willemerge as theonewhoembodies thecreative
andinnocent willtopowerandwhogailyplayswiththewheelofexistence
conceived as theeternally self-creating andself-destroying.The overman
has to be understood as thevisionwhichemerges out of theriddleof
eternalreturn. In EcceHomothethought (Gedanke)ofreturn is saidto
be themostfundamental conception ofZarathustra, foritrepresents the
highest formula ofaffirmation attainable.26The significance ofthedoc-
trineis twofold: itis botha teaching on thenatureoftimeandan experi-
encewhichaffirms thecreative unityofall things, including thatofgood
andevil.
Clearly, iftakenliterally as a cosmological hypothesis,thethought of
return is absurd.27 However, ifviewedinterms ofan imaginative response
to theproblem oftimeandtime's"itwas" (theproblem ofthepast),we
seethatitproposes an affirmation ofthenatureoftime,oftime'spassing
away,of its becomingand perishing. The peculiarchallengethatthe
thought presents liesinthequestion thatconfronts thepersonwhounder-
its
goes experience. Can I accept destiny mybeingin sucha way
the of
thatI canalsoacceptthenecessity ofmypastbecause,as a creator ofthe
future, I willedit?The testofreturn teachesa newwillbyteaching the
25For Nietzscheon "theinnocenceofbecoming"see Twilight oftheIdols,tr.Holling-
dale (Middlesex,1968),"The Four GreatErrors,"section8: "Whatalonecan ourteaching
be? That no one givesa humanbeingtheirqualities:not God, not society,not parentsor
ancestors.... No one is accountableforexistingat all, forbeingconstituted as theyare,
or forlivingin the circumstances and surroundings in whichtheyfindthemselves.The
fatalityoftheirnaturecannotbe disentangled fromthefatality ofall thatwhichhas been
and will be.... One is necessary,one is a piece of fate,one belongsto thewhole,one is
in thewhole ... thisalone is thegreatliberation-thusalone is theinnocence[Unschuld]
of becomingrestored."
26
Nietzsche,Ecce Homo, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra,"section1.
27
BerndMagnushas pointedoutthatitis onlyin theNachlassmaterialthatNietzsche
experiments withtheidea ofeternalreturnin termsofa scientific hypothesiswhichstates
what realityreally is like, while the normativeimportof the idea is emphasizedin
everyworkhe wroteforpublicationafter1881. See his essay,"Nietzsche'sEternalistic
Counter-Myth," ReviewofMetaphysics, 26 (1973), 604-16.AlexanderNehamashas argued
thatthepresentation of thedoctrinein existentialtermsdoes not presupposethevalidity
of the cosmologicalhypothesis.See his essay,"The EternalRecurrence,"Philosophical
Review,99 (1980), 331-56. My readingof the eternalreturnis one which verymuch
concurswiththe argumentsmade by Magnus and Nehamas regardingits fictionalor
regulativestatus.
Nietzsche's
Ubermensch 319
individual creativelyto willtheexistence whichtheyhaveso farledonly
blindly andunknowingly. Howwell-disposed towards lifewouldwehave
to be to desirenothing morefervently thanitseternalconfirmation and
seal?Do wehavethestrength andcouragetoaffirm theeternal return of
the "moment"or are we fullof pityforlifeand desireonlyits self-
preservation? Thesearethekindsofquestions wefindinsection341ofthe
GayScience,wherethe doctrineof return is first
presented inNietzsche's
published workintermsof"thegreatest weight." Thedoctrine ofreturn
is presented as thegreatest weight becauseitis a doctrine whichendows
ourpersonal existence withmeaning andsignificance. It teachesustolove
lifeand not to seek redemption from its tragiccharacter. In orderto
affirm lifeitis necessary toaffirmall oflifewithout selection, subtraction,
or addition.Onlyin thiswayis it possibleto freelifefromprejudice
(pre-judgment) andletit be in all itsterrible fecundity and richvariety.
Thisis whythedoctrine teachesthatinundergoing theexperience ofthe
moment-what I wouldliketo call "thetimeofreturn"-what thewill
mustwillis thereturn ofone'slifewitheverypainandevery joy,every
thought andeverysigh,andeverything unutterably smallandgreatall in
thesamesuccessionand sequence.Why?Becauseeverything we have
done,andthemanner in whichwe havedoneit,is necessary to whowe
"are."Thequestionis: do we wishto becomethosewhowe are?Whatis
transformed inthewilling contained intheexperience ofreturn is notthe
pastitself, whichwouldbe impossible, but our attitude towards it.28
The
pastis neversimply pastas wearealwaysreinterpreting andrevaluing it
in thelightofourpresent needsand ourconception ofthefuture. The
waythatthepastcan becomepresent is through theexperience ofthe
"moment."
The affirmation of the"moment"as the"innocence of becoming"
represents thehighest affirmation ofthetemporal andtransient character
oflife,forit reflects an attitude towardslifethatis above(uber)moral
judgment (beyond anytheological ormetaphysical opposition ofgoodand
evil).Morality forNietzsche, takenin an absolutist or universalist sense,

28 On thispointsee Nehamas,"EternalRecurrence," 34-39.One ofthemostchalleng-

ing readingsof Nietzsche'sdoctrineof eternalreturnas a teachingon how one becomes
whatone is, and whichis offeredas a critiqueof Nehamas's "humanist"readingof it,is
thatevincedby Gary Shapiroin his NietzscheanNarratives(Bloomington,1989), 88-92.
AgainstNehamas,he arguesthatthe doctrinedoes not positan ideal of the integrated,
harmoniousself(evenifthatselfis createdratherthansimplygiven)butratherit affirms
thedissolutionand dispersionoftheself-insteadofharmony, thereis dissonance,instead
of control,thereis abandonment, insteadof coherence,thereis contradiction, insteadof
identity, insteadofclarity,thereis ambiguity,
thereis difference, and so on. I myselffind
it difficultto understandhow eternalreturncan operateas a self-reflective principle
withouta notionofintegration. Unless"willing"theeternalreturnleads to an "enhance-
ment"of one's feelingof powerand well-beingthe result,as Nietzschesays,is likelyto
be a crushingofthewill,perhapsevenself-annihilation in itsliteralsense.In thisrespect,
myreadingdiffers readingofthekindfavoredbyShapiro.
froma classicdeconstructionist
320 KeithAnsell-Pearson

servesto condemnlifeforit is unableto affirm "thegrandeconomy of

life,"whichconsists inrecognizingthecreative unityofall things.Moral-
ity,bycontrast, cannotaffirm thewhole;themoralpersonselectswhat
theyrequirefortheirownself-preservation and failsto see thatin the
general economy ofthewholepainis as necessary as pleasure,thatsuffer-
ingisa precondition ofself-overcoming,andthatcouragecanonlyemerge
out of cruelty towardsoneself.In orderto havetheexperience of the
"moment"it is necessary thatone liberateoneselffromone'sordinary
conception oftimein whichtimeis experienced as a series,thatis,time
interms ofpast,present,
ofa seriality andfuture. The"moment" provides
an insight intotheverytimeliness of time;thatis, it revealsthattime
is change,decay,ceaselessmovement and becoming. In affirming the
"moment" wearethusaffirming timeitself forwerealizethatitis ofthe
essenceoflifeto die,perish,decay,anddegenerate. In willingtheeternal
return ofthemoment wearewillingthelawoflife-decay,degeneration,
waste,excess-andrecognizing thatlifeis theunityofpleasureandpain,
ofjoyandsuffering, ofgoodandevil:"Good andevil,andrichandpoor,
and nobleand base,and all thenamesof thevirtues:theyshouldbe
weaponsand ringing symbolsthatlifemustovercomeitselfagainand
again!"29
AfterNietzschethought thatthedramawas complete in threeacts,
headdeda fourth parttoZarathustra in 1885,whichheat first published
Once
privately. again thevision ofthe Ubermensch becomes prominent,
afterhavingbeensomewhatcast aside in partthree.Thus insteadof
Nietzsche'sabandoning theteaching oftheoverman in favorofthatof
eternalreturn,as arguedbyLampert, whatwe findis thatit is in part
fourthatthevisionoftheoverman returns.In thediscourse includedin
partthreeentitled "OfOld andNewLaw-Tables," Zarathustra declared
thatit wasoutoftherecognition oftheunityandnecessity ofall things
thathe "pickedup thewordUbermensch." Zarathustra revealsfurtherin
partfourthatthe overman is the person who has emerged from the
experienceoftheriddleofreturn andaffirmed theimport ofitsteaching.
We thusfindthatin thefinalpartofthebookZarathustra onceagain-
justas hedidintheprologue-heralds thevisionoftheoverman interms
ofa prefigurationofa future, transfiguredhumanity.
A visionofthe Ubermensch serveson one levelas a consolation for
Nietzscheinthattheprospect ofa newhumanity consoleshimintheface
oftheworld-weariness ofmodemMensch.Thisexplainswhy,in spiteof
whatmany commentators mayregardas a lackofcoherence inhiswork,
Nietzschestubbornly clingstosuchanidea.Insection twoofthediscourse
inpartfourentitled "OftheHigherMan" Zarathustra summons up once
againa visionoftheoverman: "Verywell!Comeon,youHigherMen!
Onlynowdoesthemountain ofmankind's future labour.God has died:

"Of the Tarantulas."

29 Nietzsche,Zarathustra,
Nietzsche'sUbermensch 321

nowwedesirethattheoverman shalllive!"In sectionthreeofthisdis-

course,moreover, he speaksoftheoverman as his"paramount andsole
concern."Theseare hardlythewordsofa teacherwhohas abandoned
hisoriginal immaculate conception.
On anotherlevelthe Ubermensch represents Nietzsche's conception
ofa humanity whichhas learnedthe"artofinterpretation" and is able
toreadthe"signs"ofphilosophy forwhattheyare:symptoms ofabundant
ordegenerating life.In 1885hebeginstowritehisphilosophy of"beyond
goodandevil"as a "preludeto a philosophy ofthefuture," whilein the
prefaceswritten in 1886to neweditions ofhisearlierbookshe beginsto
"name"hisfuture readersandtogivethemvariousguises.Whatbecomes
clearis thatthevisionof the Ubermensch has thestatusof an artist's
creation;itis theproduct oftheimagination ofthepoet.The question of
whether thenotionoftheUbermensch is trueor falseis,on theseterms,
franklyirrelevant.Ratherthequestion istowhatextent isita life-enabling,
life-enhancing,andlife-affirmingnotion?Andlife-enhancing forwhom?

Entanglement
IV. The Fundamental ofEternal
oftheDoctrines
ReturnandtheOvermanin theZarathustra-Nachlass

An analysisoftheZarathustra-Nachlass revealsthatNietzsche puta

he
greatdeal of carefulthoughtintohow shouldpresentthe book's
fundamental teachings and conceptions. It is clearthathe was led to
abandonanythoughts ofbeginning thebookwiththedoctrine ofreturn
whenhe recognized thatZarathustra and his audiencehad firstto be
prepared foritsexperience, andthispreparation takesplacethrough the
calltocreatetheUbermensch, inwhichweacceptthenecessity ofsacrific-
ingourpresent selvesinorderto go underandoverto something greater
andnobler.Thus,on oneleveltheconception oftheoverman represents
Nietzsche'sconcernwiththe further disciplineand cultivation of the
humananimaloncetheChristian-moral interpretationoftheworldhas
lostitspowerandascendancy. Thisis thespecific historical
context-the
deathofGodandthedevaluation ofWestern humanity's highestvalues-
in whichthevisionis promulgated byNietzsche.
On innumerable occasionsin theNachlassNietzscheportrays Zara-
thustraas a teacherandlawgiver, ranking himalongside suchfigures as
Moses,Buddha,Jesus, andMohammed.30 Zarathustra's taskistodescend
to humanbeingsin orderto showthemhow theycan learnhow to
overcome themselves. It is hisdestiny to becomewhatheis-the teacher

Studienausgabe(henceforth
30 See Nietzsche,SamtlicheWerke:Kritische abbreviated
to KSA), eds. G. Colli and M. Montinari(Munich, 1967-77and 1988), IX (Nachlass
1880-82),15 [17].
322 KeithAnsell-Pearson

ofeternalreturn.The teachingsoftheovermanand eternalreturnpresup-

pose and reinforceone another. In a note fromJune/July of 1883
Nietzschehas Zarathustraforgethimself,and "out of the overmanhe
teachesthe doctrineof return:the overmanenduresit and employsit as
a meansofdiscipline In a notefromtheSummer/Autumn
and training.""31
of the same year,Nietzschewrites:
achievecompleteness
teaching:
Principal ateverystage-
feeling
andpleasurable
don'tleap!
Aftertheprospect
Firstthelawgiving. oftheoverman ofreturn
thetheory is
nowin an awesomewaybearable.32

Whatthesenotesshowis thatNietzscheis led to theovermanbecause

he is in needofa visionofa typeofhumanity whichis able to endureand
affirm theabysmalthoughtofeternalreturn.Whatwe discoveraboutthe
relationship betweenthebook'stwofundamental teachingsfromexamin-
ing the Nachlass materialis thatforthe most part it is the doctrineof
returnwhichdescendsuponNietzschefirstand thathe is led to thevision
ofthe Ubermensch in orderto conceiveofa humantypewhichcan make
thethoughtofreturnendurable.In severalplaces in theNachlasswe see
thatthe overmanrepresents Nietzsche'sconsolationas the onlyway in
ofsucha thoughtas theeternal
whichhe can stillbelievein thepossibility
return.The notionofthe Ubermensch thusstipulatestheconditionsunder
whichan enduranceand an affirmation oftheeternalreturnare possible.
Similarly, thedoctrineofeternalreturnestablishestheconditionsforthe
creationof the overman.A note fromthe Autumnof 1883 makes this
pointclear:
is theheraldwhocallsup manylawgivers.
Zarathustra
Thenafterthishaspresented
Firstthelawgiving. ofproducing
theprospect the
overman-great awesomemoment schauerlicher
(grosser Zarathus-
Augenblick)!
traproclaimsthetheory
ofreturn-which to himself
is nowonlyendurable for
thefirsttime!33

How is thethoughtofreturnto be enduredand affirmed? By modern

Menschperhaps?But theansweris underour nose,fortheovermandoes
not existin some distant,unknowablefuture.The new is bornout ofthe
old as the child is bornout of the parent.Remember,forNietzschethe
law of life is one of "self-overcoming":the questionis whether"we"

debtinmyreading
31Nietzsche,KSA, X (Nachlass1882-84),10 [47]. I owe a significant
of the Zarathustra-Nachlassto Marie-LuiseHaase and her essay,"Der Ubermenschim
Also sprachZarathustraund im Zarathustra-Nachlass 1882-85,"NietzscheStudien,13
(1984), 228-45.
32 Nietzsche,KSA, X, 15 [10].
33 Ibid., 16 [86].
Nietzsche's
Ubermensch 323

(Mensch)desirethrough an act ofcreativewillingto becomethosethat

"we are" (Ubermensch). The overman is withinus,it is not"outthere."
Rather,it is a questionof givingbirthto it by freely undergoing the
experienceofself-overcoming (from Menschto Ubermensch). Thereason
whytherehasnotbeenan overman so faris becausehumanbeingshave
yettolearnhowtogounderandoveroracrosstothatwhichlies"beyond"
themselves.To "men"the Ubermensch thushas the appearanceof a
"super"man.Afterundergoing theexperience ofreturn himself in part
threeofthebook,Zarathustra emerges fromitsriddlewitha modified
and reformulated visionoftheoverman whichhe delivers in partfour.
The overmanis notto be conceivedalongfantastical linesbutsimply
denotesthetransfiguration we undergowhenwe experience the "mo-
ment."A clueis foundintheprologue toZarathustra whenitis saidthat
theoverman is the"lightening" whichemerges outofthe"darkcloud"
ofman.
The specificproblemwhichfacesZarathustra-andNietzsche--is
howto teachhumanbeingsa doctrine whichrequires themto overcome
themselves butwhich,whentaught,has all theappearances of a new
religionand of something impossibleto attainexceptby anyonebuta
"superman." It is perhaps thegreatparadoxofZarathustra's visionofthe
overman thatwe seekwithinit something fantasticaland monumental,
whenitstruemeaning andsignificance liebeforeus ifonlyweknewhow
tobecomethosethatweare.AsNietzsche saysina notefrom theNachlass;
"All signsof theoverhuman appearas signsof illnessor madnessto
men."34 Zarathustra is a teacherwhodeconstructs thegroundofhisown
authorityand mustdo so ifhe is to teachautonomy. Strictlyspeaking,
theoverman cannotbe taughtbutonlyundergone.

V. The Questionofthe"We" in Nietzsche

It is oftennotedthat the notionof the overmandisappearsin

Nietzsche'swork(bothpublishedand unpublished) afterThusSpoke
Zarathustra, making onebrief,insignificant insection4 of
re-appearance
TheAnti-Christ. However,whatthisobservation is theextentto
ignores
whichtheUbermensch alsorefers ofthe"we"inNietzsche,
tothequestion
how authorand readerare constituted and transformedin theact of
reading.It is not,I wouldcontend, 1886and 1887that
untiltheprefaces
Nietzsche beginstorevealcluesas totherealidentityoftheUbermensch.
Theoverman whomustdecipher
is "we,"thatis,thereadersofhistexts,
theirmeaning bylearningthe "artofinterpretation,"
gainingfromitthe
insightthat,justas thereis no "way,"so thereis no truth-fortruth,

34Ibid.,5 [1] 250.

324 KeithAnsell-Pearson

likewoman,does notexist.Thereis onlytruth,woman,and overmanin

the plural.
In theprefaceto thesecondeditionofthefirstvolumeofHuman,All
TooHuman Nietzschespeaksofhisworkas an exercisein theoverturning
of habitualevaluationsand valued habits,indeedof everything "human,
all too human." He describeshis writingsas a schoolingin suspicion,
contempt,courage,and audacity.He even goes so faras to admit-in a
way thatRousseau,thatothergreatconfessor, nevercould-that all his
thinking may be not only a consolation
but also a deception.However,to
speak like thisis to speak "unmorally,extra-morally, 'beyondgood and
evil.' " He confessesthatthe"freespirits"are creaturesofhis owninven-
tionwhichhe has createdso as not to feelalone and isolatedin his task.
He looks forwardto a day of "greatliberation"when individualswill
havelearnedthatitis possibleto overturn thepastand to revalueprevious
values. "We" shall have becomemastersof our virtues,of our "for"and
"against."Moreover,"we" will have graspedthe "necessaryinjusticein
everyFor and Against."3"Section7 ofthisprefaceprovidesa real clue to
unravellingthe identityof the overman,of the "we" in Nietzsche.It is
herethatNietzschepositsthe freespiritas someonewhose existencein
the presentis governedby a conceptionof a possiblenew futurewhich
lies pregnantwithinthem:
"Whathas happenedto me,"he saysto himself,"musthappento everyone in
whoma taskwantstobecomeincarnate and'comeintotheworld.'" Thesecret
ofthistaskwillruleamongandintheindividual
forceandnecessity facetsofhis
destinylikean unconsciouspregnancy-longbeforehe has caughtsightofthis
taskorknowsitsname.Ourvocationcommands anddisposesofus evenwhen
we do notyetknowit:it is thefuture
whichregulatesourtoday.

In the prefaceto the new editionof the secondvolumeof thiswork,

Nietzschespeaks revealinglyof his writingsas containing"preceptsof
health"whichmaybe recommended to thosewho willread himin terms
ofa disciplinavoluntatis.36His writingsare certainlythoseofa pessimist,
he tellsus, but of a pessimistof strengthwho has overcomeall romanti-
cism.In section6 he raisesthedecisivequestionofhis workwhenhe asks
whetherhis experience-"thehistoryofan illnessand a recovery"-shall
have beenhis personalexperiencealone or does it possessa truththatis
something more?He respondsbysayingthatit is hishopethathis "travel
books,"as he likesto call them(theydo speak ofjourneysand voyages!)
have not been writtensolelyforhimselfand thathe now may venture
themoffagain.His writings are thusto be understoodas a giftoffered
to

35 Nietzsche,Human,All Too Human, tr.Hollingdale(Cambridge,1986),I, preface,

section6.
36 Ibid., II, section2.
Nietzsche'sUbermensch 325

a humanity which,in theact ofreadingthemwiththeaid ofan "artof

interpretation," willconstitute itselfas an over-humanity.
The relationship between healthandphilosophy is takenup againin
theprefaceNietzschewroteto thesecondeditionoftheGaySciencein
theautumn of1886.He speakstohisreaders, significantly,as a "convales-
cent."Thetaskoflifeis to transform sickness intohealth.Nietzsche has
discovered thatheis a sickanimal(heis a "man")andhaslearnedtoask
whether a religiousoraesthetic craving forsome"Apart,Beyond, Outside,
Above"(Oberhalb)-which mustincludehis owndesireforthe Uber-
mensch-doesnotsuggest thatitis sickness whichinspires everyphiloso-
pher.Nietzsche's ultimate testis whether he canaffirm thispainful truth
abouthimself-namely, thathe too,likethe ascetics,Christians, and
moralists suchas Rousseauhe castigates throughout hiswritings, suffers
fromlife.Whathe mustdo is to affirm thissuffering as necessary to his
ownself-redemption and self-overcoming. He contends thatphilosophy
hasnotsimply beenan interpretation ofthebody,buta misunderstanding
ofit.Whatphilosophers havedonefrom Platoonwards istocastrate their
reflectionson lifefromthebodyofexperience whichunderlies them.For
Nietzsche philosophy is maternal inthatitrestson theunityofbodyand
soul.The truephilosopher is one whorecognizes thatherthoughts are
born out of the of
pain experience which, likethe experience of childbirth,
shouldby endowedwith"blood,heart,fire,pleasure,passion,agony,
conscience, fate,and catastrophe." "Life-thatmeansconstantly trans-
forming all thatweareintolightandflame-alsoeverything thatwounds
us; we simplycan do no other.Andas forsickness: arewe nottempted
to ask whether we couldgetalongwithoutit? Onlygreatpainis the
ultimate liberator ofthespirit.... 37 It is onlytheexperience ofgreat
pain thataffordsus the deepestinsightsinto the humancondition.
Nietzschemakesthepointthatthe experience of suchpain does not
necessarily makeus "better"humanbeingsbutonlymore"profound"
ones.Theresultofsuch"dangerous exercises ofself-mastery" shouldnot
be "self-forgetting"and "self-extinction"; rather, thetaskis to emergea
"changed"and "different person."In a passagefullofwisdomandlove
oflife(ofwoman),Nietzschewrites:"The trustin lifeis gone:lifeitself
has becomea problem. Yet one shouldnotjumpto theconclusion that
thisnecessarily makesonegloomy. Evenloveoflifeis stillpossible, only
onelivesdifferently. It is thelovefora womanthatcausesdoubtsinus."38
The transformation involvedin undergoing thisprocessof self-mastery
restson learningthe "art of transfiguration" (philosophy). Fromour
"abysses," andfromour"sicknesses" weareto "return newborn": "with
a seconddangerous innocence injoy,morechildlike and yeta hundred
timessubtler thanonehas everbeenbefore."

section3.
37 Nietzsche,The Gay Science,preface,
38 Ibid.
326 KeithAnsell-Pearson
WhatNietzsche is describinghereis theexperienceofdown-going or
perishingbywhichone transfigures everything thatone is and emerges
beyond(uber)oneself. The taskis to transfigurepainand suffering into
joy anda celebrationoflife,to turnthesickness intogoodhealth,andto
overcomeone's resentment by recognizing the necessityand unityof
all things(especially
theunityofgoodand evil);one must"return"as
"newborn." WhatNietzscheis demanding ofhisreadersis nothing less
thanthattheygivebirthtothemselves-the mostdifficultofall tasks!In
section343 of book fiveof the GayScience(also added in 1886/87)
Nietzschestipulatesone conditionof thistask of "self-overcoming,""
namely, thatitbeperformed freeofresentment. He arguesthatifwewant
to reacha position"outsidemorality... beyondgood and evil" thenwe
mustovercomethe timewe live in "withinourselves"and our prior
aversionandcontradiction againstourtime;inshort, weneedtoovercome
our''romanticism."
Whatis evident intheseprefaces toneweditions ofhiswritings is that
Nietzscherecognizes thatitwillbe hisfatetobe bornposthumously, and
so he inventsan audienceforhimself. He speaksof thecoming"free
anddescribes
spirits" themvariously as "thegoodEuropeans," the"tragic
pessimists,"andthe"self-overcomers ofmorality." In section377ofthe
partoftheGayScience(1887)he speaksoftheoneswhostrive
fifth tobe
over-man as the"children of thefuture," who "feeldisfavour withall
idealsthatmightlead oneto feelat homein thisfragile, brokentimeof
transition."These"children ofthefuture" aretheoneswhorefuse tobe
"reconciled,""compromised," or "castrated"by the presentage.
Nietzsche'sauthorship therefore, lies "beyond"(uber)himself in this
"future"oftheUbermensch. Nietzsche's readerswillbe thosewho
future
haveundergone thetestofeternal return andemerged changed and"over"
man.Onlywhen"we,"Nietzsche's readers, havebecomewhatweare,is
histaskcomplete andcanhebecomewhatheis (thelegislator whocannot
legislate).
Moreover, onlyoncewehaverejected Nietzschewillhe return
tous.Why?Becauseat thatpointwewillhavebecomethosewhoweare:
wewillhaveconstituted ourselves as theoneswhoare"new,unique,and
incomparable."

The EternalReturnofthe
VI. Truthand Womanin Nietzsche:
Overmanas theReturnofWoman

On thelevelofovertpronouncements, viewson woman

Nietzsche's
thoseofanaristocrat
arestraightforwardly whoseesmale-femalerelation-
shipsandthesocialrolesofeachsexinstrictly
functional
andunsentimen-
Nietzsche'sUbermensch 327

talterms.39However,on thelevelofa textualpoliticsinwhichthequestion

ofstyleis paramount,therecan be foundin Nietzsche'swritingsa celebra-
tionof the "feminine"and of womanconceivedas sensuality, themulti-
facetedbody,and passion,an affirmationwhichstandsin markedcontrast
to themasculinisttraditionofWesternphilosophywhichhas erectedthe
phallusof Reason in a positionof superiorityover emotion,desire,and
passion. It cannotbe withoutsignificancethat Zarathustra'squest for
meaningand truthculminatesin therecognition of"eternity"understood
as a woman.Nietzscheuses the idea of "woman" as a metaphorforlife
understoodas eternalpregnancyand fecundity. It is woman who thus
embodies,who bears and carries,the overmanas life'sperpetualdesire
forself-overcoming.
At the beginningof his prefaceto BeyondGood and Evil Nietzsche
poses thequestion:"Supposingthattruthis a woman?"If so, is it notthe
case, he suggests,thatup to now all philosophershave been dogmatists
in theirassumptionsabouttruthand novicesaboutwomen,to theextent
thattheyhave failedto recognizethattruthas such-truth in and for
itself,truthas divine,as the Good, as God-does not exist?Woman
escapesall attemptsto fixherposition,to givehera stableidentity or an
essence.40However,woman-like truth-is plural,polysemous, a dissimu-
latingveilbehindwhichlies notthetruthbutanotherveil,anothermask.
Derrida writeson thispluralityof meaning:
Thereis nosuchthingas a woman,as truth ofa womaninitself....For
initself
just thisreason,thereis no suchthingeitheras thetruthof Nietzsche, or of
Nietzsche's itis ina paragraph
text.In fact,inJenseits, onwomanthatonereads
"theseare onlymytruths". .. . The veryfactthat"meineWahrheiten" is so
underlined,thattheyaremultiple, variegated, even,canonlyimply
contradictory
thattheseare nottruths....Evenif it shouldbe forme,aboutme,truthis
plural.4'

Nietzsche'sobjectionsto feminismcontainthe "post-feminist"message

thatwomen'sattemptsto definewomanas such committhesame essen-
tialistfallaciesas themasculinist
tradition Derrida
ofWesternphilosophy.
writes,"Feminismis nothingbut the operationof a womanwho aspires

39 A representativesampleof Nietzsche'saristocraticviewscan be foundin Beyond

Good and Evil, sections231-39. See also the sectionentitled"Woman and Child" in
volumeone of Human, All Too Human, 150-60.
40 Derrida,Spurs,55. For a usefulintroduction to Derrida'sreadingsee Kelly Oliver,
"Womanas Truthin Nietzsche'sWriting," Social Theoryand Practice,10,(1984), 185-99.
See also heressay,"Nietzsche'sWoman.The Poststructuralist Attemptto do away with
Women,"Radical Philosophy, 48 (1988), 25-29. I treatDerrida's positionvis-a-visfemi-
nismmuchmorecriticallythanI do here,in myessay,"Nietzsche,Woman,and Political
Theory,"in P. Patton (ed.), Nietzsche,Feminism,and Political Theory(London, 1992,
forthcoming).
41 Derrida,Spurs, 102-3.
328 KeithAnsell-Pearson

tobe likea man.... It wantsa castrated woman.Gonethestyle."42 Thus,

Nietzsche's "postmodern" (in thesensethatitis written as a philosophy
ofa future Ubermensch) multifariousartofstyle, whichaffirms thepathos
of distance,and celebrates a plurality of guisesand a multiplicity of
meanings, containspositivepossibilitiesforarticulating a celebration of
identity in difference.
SarahKofmanhaswarnedagainstrushing headlong intopronouncing
Nietzsche tobe an unambiguous misogynist. In a highly instructive essay
shehasshownthesignificance of Nietzsche's use of the Greek goddess of
Bauboto definethemystery of "truth."43Whatis necessary, Nietzsche
saysin the 1886prefaceto theGaySciencewherehe speaksofBaub5,
is to "stopcourageously at thesurface, at thefold,theskin,to adore
appearance," "outofprofundity."
tobe superficial Thetruephilosopher,
Kofmanastutely notes,is thetragicphilosopher forshewillsillusionas
illusion,knowing thatwomanhas reasonto hidehertruths. "Mastery
meansto knowhowto keeponeselfat a distance, to knowhowto close
doorsand windowsand keeptheshutters closed."44 By identifying life
and"truth" aboutlifewithBaub5,Nietzsche is identifying lifenotsimply
withwomanbutinparticular withherreproductive organswhichsymbol-
izeprocreation andfecundity. As Kofmannotes,in"theEleusianmyster-
ies thefemalesexualorganis exaltedas thesymbolof fertility and a
guarantee and
of regeneration eternal return of all things."45 this
To
extent, as Kofmanpointsout,Baubo can be takento signify a female
doubleofDionysus.Takentogether, eachas thedoubleoftheother,the
two-Baub6andDionysus-prefigure a futuremodeofreflection beyond
themetaphysical distinctionof"male"and "female"conceived in terms
ofa naturalhierarchy inwhichall thatis maleandmasculine is affirmed
whileall thatis femaleandfeminine is negatedand denigrated.
Amongcontemporary Frenchthinkers itis Luce Irigaray who,how-
everproblematic andparadoxical sucha taskmaybe,hasarguably done
mostto articulate the"feminine"' in philosophy.46 Although it is often
accusedofpostulating a biologicalessentialism, Irigaray's muchmisun-
derstood workattempts to articulate
a complex, non-hierarchical experi-
enceoftheworldin whichthefeminine voicewhichhas beenexcluded

42 Ibid.,65.
43 See S. Kofman,"Baubo: TheologicalPerversionand Fetishism,"tr.T. B. Strong,
in M. A. Gillespieand T. B. Strong(eds.),Nietzsche'sNewSeas (Chicago, 1988), 175-203.
"Ibid., 196.
45Ibid., 197.
SpeculumoftheOtherWoman,tr.GillianC. Gill (New York, 1985).
46 See L. Irigaray,

Her readingof Nietzsche,AmanteMarine: De FriedrichNietzsche(Paris, 1980), has

recently beenpublishedin EnglishbyColumbiaUniversity Press.For a good introduction
to herworksee M. Whitford, Luce Irigaray:Philosophyin theFeminine(London, 1991).
Nietzsche'sUbermensch 329

fromthediscourseof philosophy is utteredand heard.47 Thus,as one

commentator has commented, her work seeksto explore "a radically
deferred,indeterminate styleofwritinginordertoavoidall essentialisms
andstablecategories."48 ThusIrigaray's attempt to "writethebody"by
evokingthefemalegenitals to describea libidinaleconomy centeredon
touch,feeling,flow,andperpetual playchallenges the logic
phallocentric
ofmalereasonandrationality whichhasgoverned thediscourse ofWest-
ernphilosophic thinking fromPlatoto Freud.Nietzsche's attempt at a
styleof philosophy whichseeksto articulate an inwardexperience, to
communicate thepassion ofthe body and thepathos of willto power as
life,canthusbe seenas a powerful
eternal allyin thecauseofcreating a
feminine styleofwriting.
The overman is a figurethatis pregnant withplurality anddiversity
of meaningand styles. The overman can today be understood as the
symbolof a Dionysianpost-modern futurein whichthe hierarchical
distinctionsof Western metaphysics,of phallicTruth,havebeenover-
come.Whentheoverman the"truth"
returns, ofwomanwillhavearrived.
This"moment" oftheconstitution of woman-and ofman-as plurality,
diversity,anddistancewillinaugurate theeternalreturn ofthenew,the
unique,andtheincomparable experiencewhichisbeyond anyhierarchical
opposition of"masculine" and "feminine."49

Conclusion

TheuseandabuseofNietzsche'swritingsis clearlysomethingwhich
liesbeyondhisowncontrol.All Nietzschecan do is to standtestimony
to himselfin an attemptto informhis readerswho and whathe is.
However,hisideasanddoctrinescanbeinterpreted andtakenupas much
by theimpotent and theindolentas theycan by thecuriousand the
courageous. readersofhiswork,"we" mustbe cautiousin
As attentive

47 Helene Cixous, responding to the same charge of essentialism,has argued that

"There will not be one femininediscourse,therewill be thousandsof different kindsof
femininewords... Untilnow womenwerenot speakingout loud, werenot writing, not
creatingtheirtongues-plural,buttheywillcreatethem,whichdoesn'tmeanthatothers
(eithermen or tongues)are goingto die off."See H. Cixous and C. Clement,The Newly
Born Woman,tr.BetsyWing (Minneapolis,1986), 137.
48 See J. A. Winders,Gender,Theory, and theCanon (Madison, 1991), 121.
49 I realizethatthisfinalgesture What I am
is a utopianone, "withoutjustification."
tryingto evokeis anotherlaw, anotherjustice.Cixous expressesthe predicament of this
sortofgesturesuperblywhenshe writes:"Thereis 'destiny'no morethanthereis 'nature'
or 'essence' as such. Rather,thereare livingstructuresthatare caughtand sometimes
rigidlyset withinhistoricoculturallimitsso mixedup withthesceneofHistorythatfora
to thinkor evenimaginean
longtimeit has been impossible(and it is stillverydifficult)
'elsewhere.'" See Cixous and Clement,The NewlyBorn Woman,83.
330 KeithAnsell-Pearson

ascribingfixedmeanings andstableidentities tohisprincipalconceptions

andteachings. In drawing attention to thequestionofstylein Nietzsche
(which,as I haveargued,is also a questionaboutwomanandman)it is
notmyintention todeprive histhinking ofitssubstantialityortoeviscerate
itschallenge inanyway.Instead,itbecomesnecessary toappreciatethat
forNietzsche thestylesinwhichhecommunicates histhoughtarecrucial
toitsimport anditsreception. Nietzsche seekstowriteinstylesthatwill
an activereadingofhistextsand to encourage
facilitate theexistential
"artofinterpretation" (existentialinthesensethathisteachings speakto
"all andnone").His textsarenotableforthewayin whichtheyprovide
thereaderwiththespaceto interpret theirpretensions, andto do so ina
waythatchallenges notionsofcoherence, fixedmeaning,
intelligibility,
and identity, and also withthespaceto deconstruct theauthority with
whichtheyspeak.On one important level,therefore,thenotionofthe
Ubermensch servestodenotethe"future" readersofNietzsche whohave
acquiredthe art of interpretation and who affirm "who" theyare by
affirming "what"theyare: complex,multiple, in tension,paradoxical,
playful,contradictory, and different. Nowwemustbecomethesethatwe
arebyundergoing theexperience ofthe"moment" andoutofitreturning
"newborn."
In thisessayI havetriedtoshowthatNietzsche's preoccupationwith
stylehas a substantive basisto it.As an educatorNietzsche's overriding
ambition is to promote autonomy in thereader,and to do so bywayof
example,one thatdoesnotseekto encourage straightforwardimitation
but fellow-creation. As Nietzschehas Zarathustra say in the opening
discourse ofbookfour("The HoneyOffering") oncehe hasbecomewho
he is:

For I am he, fromtheheartand fromthebeginning, drawing

drawing,
towardsme,drawing up tome,raising
up,trainer, whoonce
andtaskmaster
andnotin vain:"Becomewhatyouare!"
badehimself,

I wouldliketo suggest, as a finalpoint,thatNietzsche's notionofthe

Ubermensch partakes ofa similar paradoxtotheonewhichanimates the
tensionsofRousseau'sethicalandpoliticalthought. Rousseauexpresses
theparadoxoflegislation-does theselfexistpriortothelaworthrough
theactofits(self-)creation?-inthewell-known onthelegislator
chapter
inbooktwooftheSocialContract: namely,inordertobecomethosewho
wishto become(creatures ofvirtue), wouldwe notalreadyhaveto be
those(thevirtuous ones)?Nietzsche'svisionoftheoverman andriddleof
eternalreturn,coupledwithhisteaching on howonebecomeswhatone
is throughaffirming theentanglement ofthisvisionand riddle,can be
understood as an attempt at a resolutionof thisparadox-a paradox
whichliesattheheartofanethicsandpolitics Whether
oftransfiguration.
 Ubermensch
Nietzsche's 331

ornotNietzsche inthisattempt
is successful to overcometheparadox,is
whichmustbe leftforanother
a question occasion.Forthemoment:shall
we dance?

ofLondon.
University