I have no exceptional quarrel with scientific realism nor the existence of an objective and mind-independent reality. I am however skeptical, firstly, of the idea that restricting inquiry into that domain to "rationality" is needlessly constraining, and secondly that privileging "objective" modes of inquiry leaves out very important matters -- like consciousness, ethics, and aesthetics, to name a few.

I think that rationality encompasses all of those things entirely and don't understand why you believe differently. Rationality is the tool that we use to distinguish the claims about aesthetics and consciousness and ethics that make sense from the ones that don't. A refusal to use this tool seems like it would be crippling. Other tools might still prove useful, and there are issues as to what we should do if our tools conflict, but I think rationality is the ultimate tool because it is very good at making comparisons between different things, because it uses such generalized ideas like logic. If one aesthetic claim contradicts another, only rationality can recognize that as a problem and work towards solving it.

Indeed, I do not show how other philosophies may solve the problems because I question their status as problems at all. To treat everything as a "problem" that can and must be solved by Mighty Intellect is to implicitly endorse a particular epistemic, if not metaphysical, position -- a position that takes for granted a particular status of thinking subjects as they relate to mind-independent reality and other beings -- and I simply choose not to endorse that position, or more to the point, not to endorse it as uncritically as the locals here are wont to do.

This epistemic condition is inevitable, because you ARE a thinking subject. If you prioritize a different epistemic condition above this one I don't understand how you can go about living your life.

To repeat my earlier point: why should rationalism be given privileged grounds? The no-miracles argument is about the only thing you've got to hang a hat on, and it is trivial to point out that there are many instances just in science alone where we don't have knowledge and may never be able to acquire it. This is without even getting into arguments about why "progress" and "doing things" should be the ultimate measuring stick of usefulness, let alone truth.

There's no logical reason to give rationality privileged grounds. But I think that people should choose epistemic systems which connect to their own understanding of the way reality works. I think this on a value-level basis, not a logical metaphysical one. (Side Note: I believe that values, not logical truths, are the ultimate metaphysical justification because they inherently connect to motivational states. However, I arrived at this position through the heavy use of logic, such as by trying to think of a solution to the is-ought problem. Values are the ultimate metaphysical foundation but rationality is the ultimate metaphysical tool that we use to weigh values against each other and to consider the implications of certain values, etc.)

I can't speak for everyone of course but I find immense value in aesthetics and in other non-rational modes of human experience, and equally, I find myself wary of philosophies that exclude such values and treat them as meaningless.

I don't believe that aesthetics is meaningless. I don't know why you think rationality believes that.

In reality all this article has done is show that philosophy is far from dead; LessWrong has simply chosen to adopt a particularly limiting form of it and decry everything outside that sphere.

Please show me the quote. I don't believe that LessWrong has disavowed anything that you've said you valued.