Secondary Source: What's It All About? (2007 1 ed.) p. 120 Middle.
Primary Source: Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Section 3, ON THE EXTREME BOUNDARY OF ALL PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY
For this reason, we can here afford to set aside the free-will issue. I don't rule out the possibility that metaphysical arguments about necessity could undermine the everyday notions of free will required to accept the broad line of argument followed in this book. But I do think that possibility is remote, because the kinds of freedom and choice I talk about are the kinds we confront in experience, not just in theory. When we contemplate the meaning of life, we are thinking on the plane of action, of practical decisions and choices we have to make. No matter what metaphysicians say about free will, we have to experience the world as one with choices and dilemmas and we have to resolve them as beings able to think them through and make decisions. As Kant said , although 'reason for
speculative purposesfinds the road of
natural necessitymuch more travelled and more usable than that of freedom, yet
for practical purposesthe footpath of freedom is the only one on which it is possible to make use of our reason in our conduct'.
What does the bolded sentence mean?
The translated nouns (in grey) daze me the most.
Why does Kant metaphorize 'natural necessity' as a 'road', but 'freedom' as a 'footpath'?