Statesboro, GA, USA
Seeing the last comment made in the resurection of the Nietsche thread, I think my point is being made for me.
When you wrote "(whatever that means)" concerning "life", you made another point.
Life must be defined in some meaningful schema if we are to be urged to value it (especially when it happens to be someone else's).
The Nietzschian problem is that he didn't have any categories to affirm that life is essentially any better than death, or that non-cruelty is any better than cruelty.
The islamist terrorists, unlike Nietzsche, do have their categories through their religious doctrines. Unfortunately these are skewed, as they lead to brutality.
But in assessing the situation, dogma cannot (in fact, not theory) be done away with, because the questions always arise ... why is rationality better than irrationality? ... Why is life better than death?. And the premise "Life is better than death" is contradicted enough in the real world, that it must be a dogma of sorts, and not so self evident that we need not bother about the question "why".
I think Reb's point is that we all have "reasons" for the actions we do, and it's still about those, and asking whether they are good reasons or not... Whether they are rational or not. Pulling back and retreating from that din of controversy, into "fresher air" and trying to establish a simpler cleaner life-affirming dogma, is an imaginary escape. Same song, different verse.
Of course I agree with you that the Cult of Death takes us out of reason, and sanity, and life. But if you remember, Nietzsche probably thought that his most insightful character was the "Madman".