I'm not saying that Daniel does this necessarily, but that is what I usually encounter when I press so-called 'class traitors' on their self-appelation...
Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822
On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Roy Bhaskar's answer to the question "why ontology" is that we all possess
> at least an implicit notion of what the world must be like (for instance,
> what the world must be like for us to debate such questions as "why
> ontology"). So we are all ontologists, the only difference being that we
> differ in what ontology we prefer. Bhaskar then points out an inadequate
> ontology implicit in the prevailing mode of rhetoric:
> ***** ...I have argued that the chief metaphilosophical error in
> prevailing accounts of science is the analysis, definition or explication
> of statements about being in terms of statements about our knowledge of
> being, the reduction of ontology to epistemology which I have termed the
> 'epistemic fallacy'. As ontology is in fact irreducible to epistemology,
> this functions merely to cover the generation of an implicit ontology, on
> which the domain of the real is reduced to the domain of the actual
> (actualism) which is then anthropocentrically identified with or in terms
> of sense-experience or some other human attribute. Operating hand-in-hand
> with this overt collapse, engendered or masked by the epistemic fallacy, is
> its practical counterpart, the ideology of the compulsive determination of
> knowledge by being -- for instance, in the guise of reified facts or
> hypostatized ideas -- in what I have characterized as the 'ontic fallacy'.
> (Bhaskar, _Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom, 1993) *****
> So, there is no denying ontology, and denying it rhetorically makes your
> account of ontology merely implicit.
> Let's take a look at Daniel's pronunciamento:
> > I am also a class-traitor who thinks -- who knows -- that
> >"bolshevism" in-thought (at the level of thought or intellectual practice),
> >is deeply reactionary. And that references to the "objective interests"
> >of "the" working class are more phantasy than reality.
> It is his implicit ontology that makes him confidently assert that
> "references to the 'objective interests' of 'the' working class are more
> phantasy than reality" -- he must think he knows the objective reality of
> the world to make this totalizing truth claim about class (or perhaps he is
> merely shooting from the hip or repeating what some postmodern philosopher
> said about class in the last century). BTW, I wonder why he is sure that
> he is a "class-traitor" (to which class?) when he also says that it is only
> in fantasy one can make a reference to the objective interests of the
> working class.