Kant Autonomy Vs Autonomy

Autonomy/Heteronomy/Free Will/Classical Conditioning: What does each individually and holistically argue? And how, if possible, can they be related? What does it mean fundamentally to us as human? Kant argues that we as human beings have pure practical reason, to which he means that we are able to construct rationality from various thought processes an act accordingly given those measures because we are persons capable and worthy of respect. According to Kant we own ourselves and by being autonomous beings we are able to act and choose freely. Kant though, also created a word to contrast Autonomy: Heteronomy. “I act according to determinations outside of me”, Kant argues, that while we give ourselves a law, we are also at the same time bound by other restrictions or barriers that prohibit the potentially full use of autonomy. Although there could be accountability to others around you, Kant doesn’t necessarily mean we at one point cannot be fully autonomous. After all there are certain biological factors and physical means to which can lead person away from any principles of autonomy to full blown heteronomy ideologies. But to the more philosophical standpoint, Kant based this dualism on morality, justice and freedom.
The physical factor which includes and is not limited to chemistry, biology, neuroscience, philosophy and physiology (really physics should be the proprietor of each any of these subjects) means that we are bound by our biology, our environment. Does this sound familiar? Nature vs. nurture is often equivocal to Kant’s dualism of freedom. Let’s move beyond the notions of philosophy, since it will not suffice the full scale of