A priori knowledge: yes, but such knowledge is fallible. I know 2+2=4 without making observations, but it is possible that I am mistaken.
Abstract objects: nominalism at a glance, but I am unfamiliar with the issue
Aesthetic value: subjective
Analytic-synthetic distinction: no
Epistemic justification: don’t know what this is about
External world: non-skeptical realism
Free will: compatibilism
God: atheism
Knowledge: empiricism and rationalism are both valid ways of learning about things
Knowledge claims: don’t know what this is about
Laws of nature: don’t know what this is about
Logic: classical. Other systems of logic are not what is normally meant by the word.
Mental content: don’t know what this is about
Meta-ethics: Yudkowskian moral realism
Metaphilosophy: naturalism
Mind: physicalism
Moral judgment: cognitivism
Moral motivation: internalism
Newcomb’s problem: one box
Normative ethics: consequentialism
Perceptual experience: don’t know enough about the different positions
Personal identity: meaningless
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism? none of those
Proper names: Word should be defined in the most useful way for the purpose they’re being used for.
Science: scientific realism
Teletransporter (new matter): survival, but that’s not really meaningful
Time: B-theory
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch
Truth: correspondence or deflationary. I’m not sure of the distinction.
Zombies: conceivable but not metaphysically possible
===
Descartes for making people question things, Leibniz for the principle of sufficient reason, which I find probable, Mill for ethics, Quine for turning philosophy into cognitive science, Russell for turning it into math, and Wittgenstein for turning it into linguistics
A priori knowledge: yes, but such knowledge is fallible. I know 2+2=4 without making observations, but it is possible that I am mistaken.
Abstract objects: nominalism at a glance, but I am unfamiliar with the issue
Aesthetic value: subjective
Analytic-synthetic distinction: no
Epistemic justification: don’t know what this is about
External world: non-skeptical realism
Free will: compatibilism
God: atheism
Knowledge: empiricism and rationalism are both valid ways of learning about things
Knowledge claims: don’t know what this is about
Laws of nature: don’t know what this is about
Logic: classical. Other systems of logic are not what is normally meant by the word.
Mental content: don’t know what this is about
Meta-ethics: Yudkowskian moral realism
Metaphilosophy: naturalism
Mind: physicalism
Moral judgment: cognitivism
Moral motivation: internalism
Newcomb’s problem: one box
Normative ethics: consequentialism
Perceptual experience: don’t know enough about the different positions
Personal identity: meaningless
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism? none of those
Proper names: Word should be defined in the most useful way for the purpose they’re being used for.
Science: scientific realism
Teletransporter (new matter): survival, but that’s not really meaningful
Time: B-theory
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch
Truth: correspondence or deflationary. I’m not sure of the distinction.
Zombies: conceivable but not metaphysically possible
===
Descartes for making people question things, Leibniz for the principle of sufficient reason, which I find probable, Mill for ethics, Quine for turning philosophy into cognitive science, Russell for turning it into math, and Wittgenstein for turning it into linguistics