Edit - Philosophy Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

1

Your last point nails the head and might also come from an agency bias when you classify it as a non coincidental explanation. The agent itself along with whatever it determines is itself a coincidence or should be classified as one. I think this is what people might miss I don’t know
– Baby_philosopher
Commented Apr 11 at 16:38
@Stella -- correct. the usual way out is to presume libertarian/agent-causation makes it contingent without requiring "fantastic luck", but it is not clear that there is a coherent view of agent causation that doesn't devolve into randomness. Also, even if we grant freedom, then if the agent really had a free choice, then we are back at brute contingency.
– Annika
Commented Apr 11 at 16:47

Add a comment |

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »