So my question is: why would one choose to pursue truth over peace of soul and pleasure? — smartmonkey1

Nietzsche didn't really believe in capital T truth at all. As far as Nietzsche on Christianity goes - he found the stories implausible and the value system insufferable and he lacked a sensus divinitatis. N didn't choose truth over peace - I doubt that anyone can 'choose' their beliefs, you either do or don't believe something.

I suspect that coming from a long line of Lutheran pastors may have added to N's personal sense of rebellion against (religio-cultural) tradition. Nietzsche was a kind of a romantic figure who was ambitious to obliterate sacred cows and foundational meta-narratives and start new ways of seeing. He deconstructed truths. He was probably the first post-modernist.

why would one choose to pursue truth over peace of soul and pleasure? — smartmonkey1

To live, it seem, we need to straddle both worlds, that of fact and fiction. Deconstruct (is that the right word?) the worldview of successful people and you'll find both veracity and mendacity as cornerstones, propping it up. Truth keeps you alive but falsehoods make you wanna live.

There's a difference between not dying and living. — Eep

So my question is: why would one choose to pursue truth over peace of soul and pleasure? — smartmonkey1

I struggle to think of ways one could find inner peace without some form of truth-seeking.

To live in ignorance and delusion will sooner or later cause suffering for the self and others. I always like to think of false beliefs as being dissonant with reality, and like a lie has to grow in order to keep itself alive, so do false beliefs grow, and grow ever more dissonant, until things like depression follow.

Maybe the suggestion here is that a state of blissful ignorance is preferable over the turmoil that truth-seeking can bring. Perhaps that is true for some individuals who are unable to stomach the confrontation with their beliefs. That is a very tragic state to be in though.

I always like to think of false beliefs as being dissonant with reality, — Tzeentch

But are we talking about scientific truths? Or moral truths? What about aesthetic truths? Moral and aesthetic truths can appear to contradict natural or scientific truths (it is better to give than to receive). And maybe some kinds of suffering are better than some kinds of satisfaction (it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied...).

In the case of personal happiness I suppose it's up to the individual themselves to navigate their way through apparent contradictions.

In order of preference (my guesstimate)

A. (Cypher - The Matrix, Blue pill). If pleasure takes precedence over truth (real):

1. Real + Pleasure
2. Unreal + Pleasure
3. Unreal + Pain
4. Real + Pain

B. (Neo - The Matrix, Red pill). If truth (real) takes precedence over pleasure:

1. Pleasure + Real
2. Pain + Real
3. Pleasure + Unreal
4. Pain + Unreal

There's no issue with 1. A (Cypher, blue pill) & B (Neo, red pill) concur.

However, the rest of the items on the list have been shuffled between A and B.

Real pain has gone from 4th position in A (Cypher, blue pill) to 2nd position in B (Neo, red pill).

The combinations Unreal + Pleasure & Unreal + Pain maintain their relative positions. Most people should prefer the former over the latter and that goes for both Cypher and Neo.

My current understanding is that it is better to be good than to be happy. If you're happy because of the safety of your situation, that's volatile, because your situation can change. But if you are capable, and inspired, even without safety or happiness, then that is a strategy applicable across a larger number a variables.

Don't know how familiar you are with Neitzsche but in Thus Spake Zarathustra he basically offers that you should leave the safety of your current ideals and create your own values to become the "Overman" or create a brighter version of humanity. I guess the idea is that this is cooler than mere contentment/ happiness with the status quo.

I do think yours is a very important question though, one that many philosophers don't often have the humility or bravery to ask. I guess its a personal question, very aptly represented by Agent Smith with the blue pill/ red pill metaphor. Would you rather play it safe enjoy what you have while it lasts, or take a risk, and try to find something even better?