Finally, the overman will be a value-creator. What does this term mean? As
I mentioned earlier, the noble is contrasted with the peasant. The historical narrative Nietzsche gives us is intended to show that in spite of our perception of morality of good and evil as universal, absolute, and timeless, it's contingent and historically determined. Moreover, the way this system was created and developed gives us reason to reject the system outright. Thousands of years ago, Nietzsche claims, the nobles ruled. They ruled
because of their natural strengths, which allowed them to oppress the lower types—the peasants. Because the nobles had the "great health" referred to earlier, the peasants—weak, servile, deferential—were unable to free themselves. But they desperately wanted to turn the tables on the nobles. They looked at the nobles, saw such great power, and experienced a deep resentment toward their rulers, so deep that it controlled their every waking moment. There had to be a way to usurp the nobles' power, but it had to be done indirectly. The peasants realized that as things stood, their traits were deemed bad,
while those of the nobles were deemed good. This was in part because the nobles ruled, but it was also a reason the nobles ruled. If there was some way to change the societal perception of the traits of the nobles and the peasants—if there was a way to make their traits desirable and the nobles' undesirable—they would be able to take power for themselves. Thus, they undertook a rebellion.This rebellion, according to Nietzsche, was effected by a wholesale
overturning of the existing value system. What the peasants did was more than just switching tags—placing the label of "good" on their own traits and "bad" on those of the nobles. Such a move wouldn't have been very effective, since the nobles were obviously still in power even during the rebellion. What was necessary was a replacement of the old value system. What began as a good/bad value system, focused on successful maneuvering in the world and achievement of desired ends, was replaced by a moral system of good and evil. Material wealth in this life, on the new value system, wouldn't imply eternal wealth in the afterlife.
What did guarantee eternal happiness after death, in the light of the
peasant rebellion? Possession of the peasants' traits, of course—the very weakness, meekness, and servility responsible for their being oppressed in this life. The peasants looked at the nobles and their distinctive traits, and designated these traits, and anyone who possessed them, as evil. Then they designated the opposites of these traits as good—but now morally good. Anyone exhibiting weakness and distaste for power would receive the rewards of the afterlife, and anyone not exhibiting them—that is, the nobles—wouldn't. In this way the peasants were able to change the world simply by changing the predominant value system and, subsequently, determining their own place within the new system. Some commentators on Nietzsche have read him as arguing that the nobles of the past were examples of the overman. This cannot be right, since Nietzsche continually spoke of the overman as belonging to the future, as not having existed yet. The overman will have noble features, but this ability to create values goes beyond what the mere noble can do. While Nietzsche has very little love in his heart for the peasants, he does respect them for this one thing: their being value-creators. This is also something the overman should possess, though the overman won't create new values because of resentment or weakness. He will do so because it's in his nature, as the strong and independent figure that he is. Thus, the overman will be a free spirit, non-dogmatic about truth, noble,
and a value-creator. Since we've seen evidence that Omar satisfies the first three descriptors, this fourth will tell the tale of Omar as the overman.