| Question | Answer | Comments | |
| A priori knowledge: yes or no? | Accept: yes | | |
| Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism? | Lean toward: nominalism | If our best theories require quantification over numbers for their success, then so be it | |
| Aesthetic value: objective or subjective? | Agnostic/undecided | | |
| Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no? | Accept: yes | | |
| Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism? | Agnostic/undecided | There are both interalistic and externalistic versions of contextualism. I'm undecided on what kind of contextualist I am | |
| External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism? | Accept: non-skeptical realism | | |
| Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will? | Lean toward: compatibilism | | |
| God: theism or atheism? | Accept: atheism | However, while I do not believe that the actual world contains a God, I do believe there could have been gods insofar as necessary existence isn't an essential attribute of a deity. | |
| Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism? | Agnostic/undecided | | |
| Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism? | Accept: contextualism | | |
| Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean? | Lean toward: Humean | In my opinion, though I see the attractiveness of non-Humean conceptions of laws, all the available options seem to have more costs than benefits | |
| Logic: classical or non-classical? | Accept: classical | | |
| Mental content: internalism or externalism? | Accept: externalism | | |
| Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism? | Accept: moral realism | However, I prefer ethics which attempt to reduce moral facts to facts about what behaviours best maximize the interest of everyone | |
| Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism? | Insufficiently familiar with the issue | | |
| Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism? | Accept: physicalism | | |
| Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism? | Accept: cognitivism | | |
| Moral motivation: internalism or externalism? | Insufficiently familiar with the issue | | |
| Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes? | Insufficiently familiar with the issue | | |
| Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics? | Accept an intermediate view | I'm a Rawlsian, so my ethics looks to be consequentialist though the justification for action is deontological | |
| Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory? | Lean toward: representationalism | | |
| Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view? | Agnostic/undecided | I think counterpart theory allows that person stages can be related by a multiplicity of counterpart relations. I think the debate is a context dependent matter depending on what counterpart relation is relevant | |
| Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism? | Accept: egalitarianism | | |
| Proper names: Fregean or Millian? | Lean toward: Fregean | | |
| Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism? | Accept: scientific realism | | |
| Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death? | Lean toward: survival | If the relevant genidentity relation requires continuity and connectedness then fine, survival. If not, then death | |
| Time: A-theory or B-theory? | Lean toward: B-theory | | |
| Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch? | Accept: switch | | |
| Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic? | Accept: correspondence | | |
| Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible? | Accept: conceivable but not metaphysically possible | | |
