Some historical context:

16th through 19th-century rationalists advocated views something like the views Eliezer is advocating. This view was eventually reflected in the art of the day, as exemplified by Bach and, later, by the strict formalisms of classical music.

In the 19th century, romanticism was an artistic reaction against rationalism. We're talking Goethe, Beethoven, Byron, and Blake. In painting, it was also a reaction against photography, searching for a justification for continuing to paint.

During the romantic period, Nietzsche used romantic artistic ideas to criticize rationality, by saying that life is worth living when we commit to values, and rationality undermines our commitment to our values. He offered as an alternative the culture/value creator, who leads his culture to greatness. This greatness, he says, can only be attained if we reject rationalism. There is some happiness theory in there as well, including the idea that war isn't justified by values, war justifies values. This seems to be a riff on the idea that the striving and drama is itself what we value.

In the 20th century, Max Weber rephrased it this way: Societies are legitimized by tradition, reason, or charisma. Religious societies are legitimized by tradition. The Enlightenment introduced legitimization by reason. Nietzsche argued for legitimization by charisma.

By then, most intellectuals the world over sided with Nietzsche. (I use "intellectuals" in the standard way, which marginalizes the physicists, mathematicians, and other hard scientists whom many of us consider to be the world's true intellectuals.)

Then Hitler and Lenin-Stalin played out legitimization by charisma. Intellectuals the world over were repulsed. It didn't seem so noble in real life. They rejected Nietzsche's conclusions, but without finding any problems with Nietzsche's arguments.

Philosophy since then has been boring, probably because philosophers can't get worked up about any position anymore. Today, most intellectuals reject tradition, reason, and charisma for legitimizing society; and no one has come up with anything better.

To push the true rationalist agenda, someone needs to find the errors in Nietzsche.

This is not what I see happening. When I hear people defending the preference of truth over Happiness <edit>or utility</edit>, it sounds like they're trying to create a monstrous hybrid of the Enlightenment and Nietzsche by rooting the entire structure of rationalism in an act of charismatic Nietzschian value-creation. That's not true utilitarian rationality. It looks like rationality above the surface; but the roots are Nietzschian.