This paragraph moves from (rightly) noting that we cannot establish certainty to, in the very next sentence, a confident assertion of truth without so much as an attempt at justification. Repeating unjustified claims ad nauseam is, despite the LessWrong belief that simply repeating a claim is enough to make it so, only illustrates why this project fails: the lack of justification (minus the invocation of Putnam's "no miracles" argument, which is not as ironclad as you believe) is a very real problem for the brash and sweeping generalization that "philosophy is diseased and useless".

There is no logical way that I can prove to you that reality exists. If you want one, I am sorry. Nonetheless, my senses tell me that reality exists and that logic works and that my values are good. I accept those senses because the alternative is to embrace groundlessness and the total destruction of meaning.

You do not show how other philosophies can solve the problems I outline. You have no offense against rationalism. Rationalism has offense against other philosophies because rationalism works. Even if rationalism doesn't work, it appears to, and is the inescapable condition of my life. I can't help but think in terms of logic and induction and empiricism, and I refuse to embrace any abstract form of truth without a tangible connection to my own internal understanding of the universe.

The choice isn't between one philosophy and many, which are equally justified, but between one philosophy which is my own and the one that I can't help but believe, and others which are so abstract and deconnected from my own experiences and understanding that they fail to provide any sort of value in my life.

As an aside, I find it interesting that you speak to me of "nihilism" given the argument for reductionism of the worst sort. Talk about "values devaluing themselves"; your own position is incompatible with value and meaning!

I don't believe that reductionism destroys value. That seems like a separate debate, anyways.

The lack of respect for philosophy here is telling; the consensus arguments here aren't even consistent, let alone capable of making informed claims to truth. You cannot simply put forth a metaphysical position -- and you are most certainly doing so despite the unwillingness to acknowledge your beliefs -- and then handwave it away as "well we think it works so we're right".

I'm not trying to do that. I'm saying that my reality is inescapably the way it currently is. If I didn't accept the metaphysical condition that I currently accept, I would believe things indiscriminately and have no ability to judge things or discern things or to make choices. However, I want to do those things. Therefore, I accept rationality. This isn't pretty, from a logical standpoint. But it's basically inevitable for anyone who wants purpose in their life.

Your alternative philosophy, whatever it might be, is at least as groundless as rationality, if not more so. If you want to reject rationality, please pick a specific paradigm and explain how it would provide an answer to the problem of induction and turtles all the way down. Otherwise, you're being unfair in your evaluation, because you place a higher burden of proof on rationality than you do on other positions.

Works for what? In trivial cases of "common sense" where induction is more or less "right"? For some instances of medicine, electronics, other assorted applications of technology? I'll grant you that too.

As a totalizing and unassailable account of humanity, the natural world, all possible knowledge? Absolutely not. Given that the consensus around here is that life and mind are reducible to rationality and technology metaphors, I hardly find this position surprising, although it is all but indefensible by your own stated positions.

Can you give me an example of somewhere where rationality doesn't work, where some other paradigm does? In my experience, if rationality doesn't work, it's in an area where nothing else works either. Moreover, rationality has a history of solving problems that were previously thought to be unsolvable. Therefore, I currently trust it more than alternative positions.