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