Kantian Independence

I found the description of Kantian independence interesting, especially because I think seems to be a contradictory element. Independence comes from the distinction between person and thing, as "a person is a being capable of setting his or her own purpose, while a thing is something that can be used in pursuit of purposes" (14). Ripstein goes on to say, "you are independent if you are the one who decides which purposes you will pursue" (14). This idea of independence is basically that you are independent when you make all the choices for your body and nobody else makes decisions for you. Dependence is when another "person gets to decide what purposes you will pursue" (15). I find all of this convincing and an interesting take on independence, as there is a distinction between autonomy and independence. I found it contradictory that Ripstein explains autonomy as something stand alone, but says that independence can only be understood in relation to dependence. He writes that, "Kantian independence is not a feature of the individual person considered in isolation, but of relations of persons" (15). I understand how independence is the counterexample to dependence, but I still feel like somebody could be independent stranded on a desert island and totally alone. That individual would be independent, as she is only subject to her own choices. I do not know if I am totally convinced that independence can only be understood relationally. I agree with the concept of independence as meaning an individual is in charge of her own choices and can only be thought of as an ends, but I feel like this could also apply to a person in isolation.