Is the Übermensch One or Many? Reconsidering the Debate through The Antichrist §4

A Metaphor for Exceptionality. AI image

Introduction

Discussions of the Übermensch repeatedly return to the same interpretive impasse. Readers regularly stumble over a seemingly simple question: is the Übermensch a singular individual or a collective figure, perhaps even a future species? The difficulty is not accidental. It is encouraged by the prophetic cadence of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, where Nietzsche places the concept in the mouth of a solitary teacher who announces what is to come. This tone easily invites messianic expectations. Yet the persistence of the question suggests that something more than stylistic ambiguity is at stake. A decisive clarification emerges when one turns to The Antichrist, where Nietzsche addresses the issue with striking precision. Read carefully, §4 dissolves the apparent dilemma by reframing the very terms in which it is posed.

The Übermensch as Individual: Evidence from Zarathustra and Ecce Homo

Positive textual evidence favors the individual reading. In Zarathustra’s Prologue, the figure of the Übermensch is introduced as a teacher who will instruct humanity in fidelity to the earth, and reject otherworldly hopes.

This framing is prophetic and pedagogical, not evolutionary or sociological. The Übermensch appears as a singular guide, rather than a population or type emerging over time.

The narrative structure reinforces this reading. Early in the book, Zarathustra proclaims the Übermensch, positioning it as a future task for humanity. As the text develops, however, the focus shifts: Zarathustra increasingly speaks of his own task, culminating in the claim that he becomes the teacher he initially announces. This narrative development demonstrates that the Übermensch is not something that merely appears after Zarathustra; it is realized in and through him, a singular existential achievement.

Ecce Homo provides further confirmation. Nietzsche observes that the concept of the Übermensch became “the greatest reality” in Zarathustra himself. Even when Nietzsche uses the language of “type,” it occurs in polemical contexts, emphasizing that Zarathustra embodies this type uniquely. The textual weight favors reading the Übermensch as an individual, embodied in Zarathustra, whose task is existential and exemplary rather than generational or evolutionary.

The plural or “class” reading is secondary, arising only as a later extrapolation, not grounded in the narrative or conceptual structure of Zarathustra.

The Antichrist §4: Evidence for Plurality

Against this backdrop, §4 of The Antichrist introduces a broader horizon. Nietzsche writes:

“There are cases of individual success constantly appearing in the most varied parts of the earth and from the most various cultures in which a higher type does manifest itself: something which in relation to collective mankind is a sort of superman. Such chance occurrences of great success have always been possible and perhaps always will be possible. And even entire races, tribes, nations can under certain circumstances represent such a lucky hit.”

Here, Nietzsche explicitly allows for both singular and collective manifestations. The same term, Übermensch, applies to exceptional individuals and to exceptional groups. In each case, contingency and rarity are central: these manifestations “have always been possible and perhaps always will be possible,” yet remain exceptions rather than norms. Difficulty attaches equally to the individual and collective cases, and collectivity does not make the achievement easier or more stable.

Two features of this passage deserve emphasis. First, Nietzsche defines the Übermensch relationally. Second, whether embodied in one person or in a people, the achievement remains precarious.

Scale, Exceptionality, and a Third Perspective

Once §4 of The Antichrist is considered, the debate takes a subtle turn. The question is no longer simply one of singular versus plural. Nietzsche’s concern lies in intensity, rank, and elevation, not in numerical determination. The Übermensch names a contrast, not a category. Exceptional achievements, whether individual or collective, are rare configurations that stand out against the background of “collective mankind.”

Seen in this light, the enduring confusion is understandable. Interpreters, accustomed to stable categories and teleological thinking, tend to search for boundaries where Nietzsche offers gradients and relational distinctions. The singular/plural debate is less a philosophical impasse than a reflection of interpretive habits. By framing the question as an either/or, readers often overlook the exceptional, relational, and contingent character of the concept itself.

Conclusion

The textual evidence presents a layered picture. Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Ecce Homo favor reading the Übermensch as a singular figure, embodied in Zarathustra and realized as a teacher with an existential, exemplary task. The Antichrist §4 expands this horizon, showing that the term can also apply to rare collective occurrences, emphasizing contingency and exceptionality. Ultimately, the debate over singularity versus plurality dissolves into a richer understanding of scale, relationality, and the exceptional nature of Nietzsche’s concept. The Übermensch is neither a lone messiah nor a future species; it is an extraordinary configuration of forces, realized in one, in some, or in rare communities, always against the backdrop of collective humanity.

References

Nietzsche, F. (1966). Beyond Good and Evil (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Vintage Books.
Nietzsche, F. (1968). The Antichrist (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Penguin Books.
Nietzsche, F. (1974). The Gay Science (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Vintage Books.
Nietzsche, F. (1978). Thus Spoke Zarathustra (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Penguin Books.