Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Nietzsche claimed that "we killed God". Thus, as Nietzsche thought, it would result in nihilism.
He also "introduced" an idea of the overman. This question is not about what the overman is. But I'm asking how is the overman different from, say, Kalki or Jesus. They all are the figures which are "yet to come". Isn't the overman simply the idea that gave meaning to Nietzsche's life like Second Coming gives meaning to Christian's life?
“How is the overman different from say kalki or Jesus”. It all depends on how you view Kalki or Jesus. Let’s use Jesus. Do you use Jesus as a substitute for being good or perfect? Do you go to church every Sunday to ask for forgiveness for being imperfect? The overman doesn’t need to follow in that sense. The overman takes responsibility for him/her self. The overman isn’t a replacement for Jesus, but perhaps, in a nietzsche sense, Jesus is an overman. Because Jesus accepts the consequences of his own purpose.
I know this sounds somewhat different than most interpret Neitszche as, or Jesus as, but it is inclusive. Did Jesus not want everyone to be like him and not just follow him? Nieszche argues Jesus, “as a child of god everybody is equal to everybody else”- twilight of the idols”
More reading
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/52263/52263-h/52263-h.htm section 41, etc.
I do realize it seems as though nietszche attacks “Jews”, but I do not feel the attack has anymore relevance than his attacks on German culture or Catholicism. It is merely an observation against people using others or majority’s or hiding behind imperfect ideologies.
Here is some more reading for those who enjoy knowing instead of understanding. http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/nietzsches-ubermensch-vs-jesus-christ/
The "Über" in Übermensch means : beyond, after, over; not necessarily "super" or "above".
See Keith Ansell-Pearson, Who is the Ubermensch? (1992), page 316 :
For decades now, generations of English-speaking commentators on Nietzsche have wrestled with the problem of how best to translate the word Übermensch. The question which any new reader of Nietzsche wants to ask is: what is meant by the term Übermensch? Is it, for example, the type of being in possession of superhuman powers, the superman of legend, or is it the symbol of the humanity of the future which has overcome the nihilism of the modem epoch and the world-weariness of modem humanity? In Ecce Homo Nietzsche states that the notion of Übermensch is not in any way to be conceived along Darwinian lines or as representing a transcendental ideal of man.
Why I Write Such Good Books, Sect.1 [page 261] : The word "overman," as the designation of a type of supreme achievement, as opposed to "modem" men, to "good" men, to Christians and other nihilists-a word that in the mouth of a Zarathustra, the annihilator of morality, becomes a very pensive word -has been understood almost everywhere with the utmost innocence in the sense of those very values whose opposite Zarathustra was meant to represent-that is, as an "idealistic" type of a higher kind of man, half "saint," half "genius."
Other scholarly oxen have suspected me of Darwinism on that account.
And see
Preface [page 217] : The last thing I should promise would be to "improve" mankind. No new idols are erected by me; let the old ones learn what feet of clay mean. Overthrowing idols (my word for "ideals")-that comes closer to being part of my craft.
