Where it seems that Nietzsche understands the overhuman to be the most truthful interpretation of everything, he seems to leaves room for different and less truthful ones. If this is a sound line of reasoning, then we could read the figure of the last human as the least truthful interpretation of the earth. Between the last human and the overhuman we find a full spectrum of interpretations which we can suppose to have varying levels of human greatness.
As discussed above, in The Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche claims that all existence is an act of interpretation as an act of becoming master. To self-interpret oneself is then to become master of oneself in a certain way, and to express this mastery …show more content…
It is then partial the one who is able to cope only with part of his experience, while at the same denying the necessity of some events in his life – perhaps out of their painfulness. Accordingly, as one does not accept part of who she is fails to be herself. At the same time, if one’s own interpretation is always what I chose to call an image of the whole, partiality towards oneself will mean partiality towards everything else; the denial of some aspects of our existence will be the denial of some aspects of existence in general as they come to be interpreted under the sign of negation – or perhaps the one of lack of mastery. From a Nietzschean point of view then, poverty is foremostly the poverty of our interpretations, and their incapacity to embrace and give stylistical unity to all aspects of existence – and therefore their possible failure in integrating new developments in whatever kind of self-intelligibility we might have previously achieved. To become great as Zarathustra it is to proceed onward until one is able to say yes to all and to turn everything in a necessity of existence, thereby coming to “sphericity” and universality, in her ability to embrace all aspects of being through her own individuality. By, seeing all the colors of the universe and by loving