Did he actually have reasons for saying YES to life? My assumption

>>9397034
No, he doesn't give any foundation to it (he never pretends that it is not a arbitrary choice) and he's explicit about it.

Nietzsche is essentially Bro-Philosophy

File: 1489195569516.png (328KB, 800x778px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 800x778px

>>9397055
what kind of axioms are you working with oh enlightened one

>>9397126
Probably truth-based axioms.

>>9397034
Basically, his thinking is that philosophy emerges from physiology, but that since philosophy can feed back into physiology, we should choose life-affirming ideas instead of failure-excusing/sour grapes ones.

If the science of the time had known about testosterone and its relation to social dominance and the sensation of victory, he probably really would have been a bro-philosopher.

>implying saying no is possible

>>9397198
You got it half right. Nietzsche considers the arbitrary choice as being necessary because there is no free will. There are a plurality of drives (forces) each wanting to impose itself on the organism and on the world. What might seem arbitrary is in fact necessary for some forces (affirmative - active ones) and contrary to others (reactive - negating/negative ones). These forces take what they need, like an addict justifying a "one last time, quitting tomorrow", words and signs and objects become conquered by the forces, the "will" of our "decisions" being merely the end result. Of course some combinations (therefore some people) are better adjusted and change easier than others. There's a lot more to say, but this is just a tl;dr.