A priori knowledge: Depends on the meaning of “knowledge”. A priori beliefs yes, a priori truth no. In general, probably closer to “no”.
Abstract objects: Nominalism, but it may as well be a meaningless distinction.
Aesthetic value: subjective.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: no.
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism, as far as I can tell this is a meaningless distinction.
External world: non-skeptical realism, if I understand correctly what the other options mean.
Free will: compatibilism or no free will, depending on the definition of free will.
God: atheism.
Knowledge: empiricism.
Knowledge claims: contextualism or invariantism, but this is probably meaningless either.
Laws of nature: Humean.
Logic: classical. Other forms of logic can be useful, but the position of the classical logic can hardly be shattered.
Mental content: failed to find a comprehensible definition of either possibilities.
Meta-ethics: anti-realism.
Metaphilosophy: naturalism.
Mind: physicalism.
Moral judgment: non-cognitivism. Not sure what’s the difference between this and moral anti-realism.
Moral motivation: mostly internalism.
Newcomb’s problem: one box.
Normative ethics: mixed.
Perceptual experience: can’t figure out meanings of the alternatives.
Personal identity: there is no ontologically fundamental identity, a confused question.
Politics: mixed.
Proper names: Fregean.
Science: scientific realism.
Teletransporter (new matter): undecided, may depend on various details.
Time: B-theory.
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch (and don’t tell anybody).
Truth: deflationary.
Zombies: inconceivable.
Note that (1) I had to find the meanings of many of the terms before answering the questions and so I am probably mistaken about actual meanings of few philosophical positions, and (2) even in many cases where I gave a unique answer I tend to think that the distinction between the positions lacks practical importance and mostly is a matter of formulation; who has better intuition pumps wins. The answers where these disclaimers don’t apply (either because I think one side of the debate is much more elegant than the other, or because I can conceive practical implications of the choice) are in bold.
A priori knowledge: Depends on the meaning of “knowledge”. A priori beliefs yes, a priori truth no. In general, probably closer to “no”.
Abstract objects: Nominalism, but it may as well be a meaningless distinction.
Aesthetic value: subjective.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: no.
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism, as far as I can tell this is a meaningless distinction.
External world: non-skeptical realism, if I understand correctly what the other options mean.
Free will: compatibilism or no free will, depending on the definition of free will.
God: atheism.
Knowledge: empiricism.
Knowledge claims: contextualism or invariantism, but this is probably meaningless either.
Laws of nature: Humean.
Logic: classical. Other forms of logic can be useful, but the position of the classical logic can hardly be shattered.
Mental content: failed to find a comprehensible definition of either possibilities.
Meta-ethics: anti-realism.
Metaphilosophy: naturalism.
Mind: physicalism.
Moral judgment: non-cognitivism. Not sure what’s the difference between this and moral anti-realism.
Moral motivation: mostly internalism.
Newcomb’s problem: one box.
Normative ethics: mixed.
Perceptual experience: can’t figure out meanings of the alternatives.
Personal identity: there is no ontologically fundamental identity, a confused question.
Politics: mixed.
Proper names: Fregean.
Science: scientific realism.
Teletransporter (new matter): undecided, may depend on various details.
Time: B-theory.
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch (and don’t tell anybody).
Truth: deflationary.
Zombies: inconceivable.
Note that (1) I had to find the meanings of many of the terms before answering the questions and so I am probably mistaken about actual meanings of few philosophical positions, and (2) even in many cases where I gave a unique answer I tend to think that the distinction between the positions lacks practical importance and mostly is a matter of formulation; who has better intuition pumps wins. The answers where these disclaimers don’t apply (either because I think one side of the debate is much more elegant than the other, or because I can conceive practical implications of the choice) are in bold.