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
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