Truth-An Idea

I talk about truth a lot. Yet, I am not sure what it means. However, a couple of days ago, I was debating with someone about politics. They came from a basically conservative point of view and were arguing on the basis of "absolute truths". I came up with the following towards the end of my argument:

Do I believe in complete moral relativism? No. Absolute truths necessarily
exist: the very statement "There is no absolute truth" is itself asserting an
absolute truth. What I DO believe is that these absolute truths are understood
relative to our viewpoints and ideas. For an admittedly bad analogy, consider a
screwdriver. The "screwdriver" in and of itself is imagined to be an "absolute
truth". However, depending on one's needs and cultural background, it is
something for driving screws, something to pry things with, a shovel, a symbol
or industry, maybe even something of sacred value (ala the Coke bottle in "The
Gods Must be Crazy!"), or a number of other things. (I know that's a horrible
analogy, and I use it because I have not yet worked out the problem of truth in
a satisfactory way.)

I'm not entirely sure where the screwdriver analogy came from, and I'm not terribly impressed by it in its current form, but it stuck with me and I continued to mull it over, with that sensation one gets occasionally when they know their on to something.
And this feeling didn't even come from the original purpose of the analogy. It came from my arbitrary choice of comparing truth to a screwdriver.
While truth is fundamentally undefinable, I think it's possible to make the analogy of truth as a tool. Truth is the tool by which one understands and manipulates ideas. The truth in and of itself is absolute, however how it is used depends on our needs and background, and it is useless if it cannot be adapted to suit varying needs. If a screwdriver was capable only of driving screws and nothing else, it would be useless if there was nothing to be screwed (...you with the dirty minds), yet its capability to perform other tasks makes it almost univerally useful. Or if a person with no concept of drving screws came across a screwdriver, they might decide that it is a toy.
So does anyone think I'm onto something?

Freedom of thought and speech

Just expanding on the "Rights" post...
My reason for believing in the absolute right to pursue one's vision of truth and meaning and to advocate that vision stems from three premises:

1. It is uncertain if there is such a thing as truth and meaning, but I believe it is likely that there is.

2. If there is, it is more important than anything else.

3. It is highly unlikely, in fact I believe impossible, for any person or group of people to know all there is to know about truth and meaning.

The first two premises lead me to a sort of "Pascal's Wager" in regards to truth and meaning: the importance of finding it if it does exist far outweigh the benfits (such as comfort) of restricting people in their search for it whether it exists or not.

There exists, however, the possibility that someone who believes they have found total truth and meaning to then insist that everyone else agree with them: religious authoritarianism and dogmatism is an example. This is where the third premise comes in. (Which I must admit is not a premise that has any logical justification other than some arguments from consequence and my own personal feelings. I.e., there is no way to know whether or not someone who claims to have found total truth and meaning is wrong.)

Both of these arguments are essentially saying the same thing: in restricting the pursuit of truth and meaning to serve what is believed to be "truth and meaning" (whether this be religion, comfort, well-being, etc.), humanity and individuals are prevented from finding what may be even greater truth and meaning.

Freedom of advocate one's vision of truth and meaning and to have free and open access to all ideas are also essential, no matter how much they may inconvenience us and make us uncomfortable, since, as stated before, a right to freely pursue truth and meaning is pointless without access to different ideas.

Past, Present, and Future

Another random idea and off-the-cuff post...
There seems to be divide in human thought between past, present, and future. By past, present, and future, I mean not only their meaning in time but also ideas associated with each of them. For instance

Past: experience, ideals, tradition, security

Present: sensation, pragmatism, pleasure

Future: imagination, ideals, innovation, revolution

(Present is probably the category with the most diversity: pragmatism and pleasure, for instance, might very well be opposed to eachother)

Here's how I would categorize some philosophies, mind-sets, and types of people according to the past/present/future distinction:

Past: conservatism, fundamentalism, respect for elders/ancestors, Confucionism, literalism, "conservative" intellectuals, reactionaries, Guardians

Present: some elements of conservatism, libertarianism, hedonism, empiricism, Zen, artists, hippies, thrill seekers, "down-to-earth", "do what needs to be done", Artisans

Future: liberalism, "the children are our future", Western Thought in general, some elements of Randian philosophy, inventors, artists, philosophers, radicals, Idealists, Rationals

(it should be obvious that, just because two things are in the same category, doesn't mean they are compatible: "down to earth" people and hippies probably would not get along very well, for instance. They are however both focused on the present.)