A commentary on Nietzsche’s Ubermensch exemplified through Omni-man, Superman and Homelander
If you have not read my previous column some defining is in order. First master vs slave morality, to give a brief yet incomplete summary, Master morality is exemplified in the Melian dialogue “the strong do as they can, the weak suffer what they must”. Slave morality on the other hand is exemplified in Jesus: mercy, chastity and giving to the poor (look to my previous column for a more thorough description). The Ubermensch —in English Superman or Overman— is to Nietzsche the penultimate goal of Mankind, an overcoming of ourselves. He is strong and powerful and affirms his foundational drives and instinct. He loves his fate, he has moved beyond the masses. He does not accept the moral system he’s given as we do, but questions, examines and re-evaluates it determining for himself what good and bad means and retaining or transforming what affirms life and discarding what diminishes it. Lastly the Will to power is what Nietzsche discerns as the ultimate will of all things, no matter how disguised, all actions are attempts at gaining or expressing power.
Omni-man, Superman and Homelander serve as a great tool to approximate what is meant by these terms as they each encompass different relevant elements. It seems best to show where they line up and fall short.
Omni-man —though preferrable to Superman’s slave morality— falls short of Nietzsche’s standards, though he acts without need for justification, unapologetically seeks power, enacts it and his power is clearly creative not reactive. Where he falls flat is he ultimately fails to question his moral values. Before adopting slave morality due to Mark’s influence, he at no point questions his Viltrumite values. Though Nietzsche would view Omni-man as a product of a strong culture he still does not resemble Nietzsche’s Ubermensch in that he does not re-evaluate what he is given.
Superman is alike to Omni-man in many ways, he unflinchingly wields power to enact his moral values. But the key difference is the values themselves, where Omni-man views the weak as that which ought to be conquered or eliminated Superman views the weak as that which must be protected. This is expected as Superman —as opposed to Omni-man— was raised around slave morality, though superman also commits the same sin as Omni-man: he does not question his Kansan moral values. Importantly both Superman and Omni-man view themselves as above the weak, Superman is protective of the weak but not subservient to them.
Homelander on the other hand is most akin to Hitler, he views these mythic titans of the past and wishes to be on the same standing. Homelander, due to his lack of parental figures, his public persona and actions not being self authored but controlled by Vought, His will to power is expressed resentfully. due to his approval seeking caused by a lack of external validation during childhood he is forced to consider the weak, as how can you both seek approval from something and view it as beneath consideration —as he knows is befitting someone of his strength. Homelander by far is the furthest from Nietzsche’s Ubermensch as he is resentful and reactive in contrast to both Omni-man and Superman’s creative expression of power. They do not look back and swat, they look forward and upward and strike.
The Superman of the future— Nietzsche’s Ubermensch is close to Omni-man in that he values his strength, instinct and independence from the herd unapologetically. Where the Ubermensch differs is that he self legislates the values he holds, he stands beyond the moral systems of the masses, he shapes new ways to value life and is perpetually overcoming himself, transcending his old states and forms, as Nietzsche put it “life itself told me this secret: ‘Behold,’ it said, ‘I am that which must overcome itself again and again.
