The distinction is the difference not only of investment, but of orientation upon objects.
Metaphysics, while definitely involved with real occurrences of political and ideological dimensions, outlining a certain real description of how institutions arrive and the consequences that entail for subjectivity and identity, is, in every case, a religious outline. D and G thus describe the course that inscribes humanity to its universal (catholic – not Christian in the narrow idea) religion as a teleological prediction to ontological surety.
” …[The] ..description and thus utilization of religious inevitability does not rely solely upon such metaphysical constraints like the adherents of congregational knowledge. Rather it arises outside of the religious function to occur within it as contradictory and heretical, as knowledge invalidated by the experts (the priests of the theological dogma). Hence, democracy finds its limit through a reflection which reveals itself but projected outward to have the world, while what is not adherent to the theology uses the reflection to determine what the democratic limits define, how the democracy is structured, and what it will be used for. ”
What we find is a difference between those who admit and acknowledge their own lack to thereby work in the mind of others, and those who uphold the certitude of their view, who only see their own mind as the unity of proper world.
Each has its own advantage, but on opposite ethical fronts.
Metaphysics is the manner of the latter, of the colonizer, the Freirean oppressor, G and D the insightful description of what happens due to this always-aggregate and indeed real popular orientation.