A priori knowledge: You can get knowledge of something by interacting with it or by being descended from ancestors who were selected by it. If you raised a human brain in a vat with no sensory input, it would not eventually discover arithmetic.
Abstract objects: Is this seriously still a thing in philosophy? Anyway, nominalism.
Aesthetic value: Subjectively objective.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: Yes, I suppose. There are things that are true by definition (but not a priori).
Epistemic justification: Seriously, they still actually classify their positions along these lines?
External world: There is one.
Free will: Shut up. (Or: my long answer, in response to the "Dissolving the Question" assignment. I still mostly agree with that comment even though I wrote it over three months ago.)
God: Atheism. Also, shut up.
Knowledge: Bayesian. (I don't think the old-timey "rationalism" vs. "empiricism" distinction is useful enough to keep around.)
Knowledge claims: I'm not going to bother trying to understand what this argument thinks it's about.
Laws of nature: This one too.
Logic: Classical logic (with all words removed) seems to be the most broadly useful, because you can make a logic gate that implements the AND and NOT operators, but not one that implements the modal "necessarily" operator (etc.).
Meta-ethics: Non-magical cognitivism.
Metaphilosophy: Naturalism.
Mind: Physicalism.
Moral judgment: A bit of both (moral assertions usually convey a mixture of both factual claims and emotional expression).
Moral motivation: Moral beliefs are obviously not universally automatically compelling. The degree to which they tend to be compelling to humans is a question for cognitive science.
Newcomb's problem: One box.
Normative ethics: Consequentialism.
Perceptual experience: I've not been able to determine exactly what all of these positions are after a few minutes of searching, but I predict that none of them is both true and non-trivial.
Personal identity: Patternism (best rescues the 'personal identity' intuition from uselessness).
Politics: Working on deleting all political views from my brain so I can start over with better epistemology now.
Proper names: As with many debates, the very premise of this one seems to be predicated on mind projection.
Science: Realist.
Teletransporter (new matter): Survival.
Time: B-theory seems trivially true.
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): Switch.
Truth: Correspondence.
Zombies: Inconceivable!
The questions are at http://philpapers.org/surveys/oquestions.html. The correlations can be intensely interesting to those who understand philosophical jargon (http://philpapers.org/surveys/linear_most.pl) - it doesn't take too long to look them up as you go - and I actually found it to be a fun way to learn new philosophy. I know that there was a LW thread about this several months ago, but it didn't have a section for people here to respond to the survey. I would be very interested to see how people here would respond.
I'll repost the questions here:
===
Original Survey Questions | PhilPapers Surveys
A priori knowledge: yes or no?
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?
God: theism or atheism?
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?
Logic: classical or non-classical?
Mental content: internalism or externalism?
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?
Time: A-theory or B-theory?
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?
===
And... which of the following philosophers do you identify with?
The philosophers available to choose from for the "which philosophers do you identify with?" question were:
Anscombe
Aquinas
Aristotle
Augustine
Berkeley
Carnap
Davidson
Descartes
Frege
Hegel
Heidegger
Hobbes
Hume
Husserl
Kant
Kierkegaard
Leibniz
Lewis
Locke
Marx
Mill
Moore
Nietzsche
Plato
Quine
Rawls
Rousseau
Russell
Socrates
Spinoza
Wittgenstein