Is imposing on others wrong?

[psychedelicist]

I've been thining about this a lot lately. I was reading a pamphlet thingy in my psychology class, called "mental health". It's a shining example to me of how NOT to be, but one part particularly stuck out in my mind:

"The mentaly healthy person accepts his limitations and shortcomings and the shortcomings of others; he does not impose upon them his will and expects to be treated the same."

So not only is the "mentally healthy" person supposed to accept his limitations (AKA not do anything that isn't relatively easy) but he is not supposed to impose on others. Basically I take this to mean a sense of mutual purposelessness. Because as soon as I admit that X has real purpose to me, it will likely impose upon others, usually those closest to me.

I'll give you an example. My girlfriend, before we were going out, was a mormon. She would call and ask, or ask while we were hanging out or something, for me to go to church or fireside or youth group or whatever all the time. It was frustrating sometimes, being imposed upon, but I knew she did it because it really meant something to her, and that's why she did it.

A story I also heard was about porcupines. They were in a cold environment and found that by huddling together, they could be warmer. Get too close, however, and their spines started pricking one another. So, they got as close as they could to one another without them pricking one another. And this boundary was henceforth known as "good manners".

So my question is, if something is of great importance to you, is it right to impose on others, or should we stick to "good manners"?

 

[Voegelin]

The last place I would look to for advice on anything is a psychology class. Also the last place I would look to find a definition of "mental health."

 

[Murmur]

I get irked when others impose their will or opinions on me after I have made it abundantly clear that their thoughts are not wanted.

I would say yes.

 

[""]

So my question is, if something is of great importance to you, is it right to impose on others, or should we stick to "good manners"?

*When somebody gives you a choice, by inviting you to go to church with them, it's not imposing. (Although with the mormons, once they know where you live, you almost have to throw them out to get them to leave you alone. So I do understand that argument.)

*When somebody is talking about their faith, and you're nearby, it's not imposing.

*When a question is asked that relates to religion or faith, and somebody answers, giving their version of religion/faith in response, it's not imposing.

*When you can say no, or walk away, it's not imposing.

We have the right to talk about our faith, just as you have the right to talk about your lack of it. We have the right to invite you to our church, just like you have the right to invite us to your home, or a movie, or anything else you'd like to invite us to. I grow weary of the "imposing" statements with regard to the above issues, because they imply that Christians should just sit around like a lump, and not speak unless spoken to. You can make a joke about that, but it's only one step away from sending us to the showers.

 

[Cleany]

surely you need to know each situation, you need to be sensitive.

 

[Welgaia]

(Although with the mormons, once they know where you live, you almost have to throw them out to get them to leave you alone. So I do understand that argument.).

Some Mormons. Not all Christians egg my house and put signs all over my yard, but some do.

surely you need to know each situation, you need to be sensitive.

I agree. It varies from person to person and situation to situation

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I've been thining about this a lot lately. I was reading a pamphlet thingy in my psychology class, called "mental health". It's a shining example to me of how NOT to be, but one part particularly stuck out in my mind:

"The mentaly healthy person accepts his limitations and shortcomings and the shortcomings of others; he does not impose upon them his will and expects to be treated the same."

So not only is the "mentally healthy" person supposed to accept his limitations (AKA not do anything that isn't relatively easy) but he is not supposed to impose on others. Basically I take this to mean a sense of mutual purposelessness. Because as soon as I admit that X has real purpose to me, it will likely impose upon others, usually those closest to me.

I'll give you an example. My girlfriend, before we were going out, was a mormon. She would call and ask, or ask while we were hanging out or something, for me to go to church or fireside or youth group or whatever all the time. It was frustrating sometimes, being imposed upon, but I knew she did it because it really meant something to her, and that's why she did it.

A story I also heard was about porcupines. They were in a cold environment and found that by huddling together, they could be warmer. Get too close, however, and their spines started pricking one another. So, they got as close as they could to one another without them pricking one another. And this boundary was henceforth known as "good manners".

So my question is, if something is of great importance to you, is it right to impose on others, or should we stick to "good manners"?

I think the emboldened is where it is misrepresenting the premise. You take a generalized rule of thumb for just that - a rule of thumb and in context; when you try and force it into an extreme position, then it becomes problematic. An example would be the book of Proverbs, those are generalized and the norm for morality/wisdom. Once you take it to an extreme and declare it is a constant and exclusive law with no other considerations or exceptions, then things don't make any sense when a contradiction or conflict presents itself.
Balance and context.

 

[Corey]

I've been thining about this a lot lately. I was reading a pamphlet thingy in my psychology class, called "mental health". It's a shining example to me of how NOT to be, but one part particularly stuck out in my mind:

High School Psychology right? Hmm...I'm not so sure I'd pay too much attention to it.

"The mentaly healthy person accepts his limitations and shortcomings and the shortcomings of others; he does not impose upon them his will and expects to be treated the same."

I'm a social psychologist and I don't buy into this.

So not only is the "mentally healthy" person supposed to accept his limitations (AKA not do anything that isn't relatively easy)

That is an interpretation. I don't think it means that, but I think it means that you acknowledge your weaknesses rather than ignore them.

but he is not supposed to impose on others. Basically I take this to mean a sense of mutual purposelessness. Because as soon as I admit that X has real purpose to me, it will likely impose upon others, usually those closest to me.

Impose is such a loaded word that I have no idea what they mean. Like you noted, you can "impose on someone's hospitality" but you can also "impose your beliefs on others." Two totally different meanings lay in there.

So my question is, if something is of great importance to you, is it right to impose on others, or should we stick to "good manners"?

Good manners are always important.

 

[Corey]

The last place I would look to for advice on anything is a psychology class. Also the last place I would look to find a definition of "mental health."

The initial statement is more or less correct. A classroom setting is harder the place for advice; it's far too easy to misinterpret statements.

The latter is blantantly wrong. An abnormal psychology class (or the abnormal psych chapter of an introductory textbook) is the correct place to find a definition of "mentally ill." Mental health is more vague and nebulous however.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

The initial statement is more or less correct. A classroom setting is harder the place for advice; it's far too easy to misinterpret statements.

The latter is blantantly wrong. An abnormal psychology class (or the abnormal psych chapter of an introductory textbook) is the correct place to find a definition of "mentally ill." Mental health is more vague and nebulous however.

Your latter statement is humorous in that it is relative and dependent on what "some" consider to be deviant or harmful and what some consider not to be deviant or harmful. Granted, there can be consensus by most on many issues or conditions, but a blanket credibility given to such an inexact science and to an organization that has misused its position is what I find ironic.

One could say that a person would need to be mentally ill to consider psychology as being stable.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"The mentaly healthy person accepts his limitations and shortcomings and the shortcomings of others; he does not impose upon them his will and expects to be treated the same."

So not only is the "mentally healthy" person supposed to accept his limitations (AKA not do anything that isn't relatively easy) but he is not supposed to impose on others.

That's not what your quote says. It says: "The mentally healthy person...does not impose...his will and expect to be treated the same."

 

[tocis]

So my question is, if something is of great importance to you, is it right to impose on others, or should we stick to "good manners"?

Just because I find something very important is not enough reason for me to impose. Only if I know exactly that not imposing would mean very real, usually physical, harm to another person would I consider imposing.
And even then it all depends on the circumstances.

 

[skinner]

This is all highly subjective until you define what you mean by imposing. Unless someone is getting in my face and screaming his veiws at me, expressing them is not imposing on me. He is welcome to shout them from the rooftops. I have the option to ignore him.

 

[Nymphalidae]

*When somebody gives you a choice, by inviting you to go to church with them, it's not imposing. (Although with the mormons, once they know where you live, you almost have to throw them out to get them to leave you alone. So I do understand that argument.)

*When somebody is talking about their faith, and you're nearby, it's not imposing.

*When a question is asked that relates to religion or faith, and somebody answers, giving their version of religion/faith in response, it's not imposing.

*When you can say no, or walk away, it's not imposing.

We have the right to talk about our faith, just as you have the right to talk about your lack of it. We have the right to invite you to our church, just like you have the right to invite us to your home, or a movie, or anything else you'd like to invite us to. I grow weary of the "imposing" statements with regard to the above issues, because they imply that Christians should just sit around like a lump, and not speak unless spoken to. You can make a joke about that, but it's only one step away from sending us to the showers.

I'm agreeing with Adiya. The world has turned upside down!

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm agreeing with Adiya. The world has turned upside down!

 

[LienShen]

I think that what it meant is that you shouldn't impose on other people to fix your mental state. When you are sad, you shouldn't expect everyone else to cheer you up. When you are angry, you shouldn't impose your anger and possibly abuse on other people. When you are happy, you shouldn't expect everyone else to be happy for you.

It also means that just because someone is your partner, does not mean that they can use your relationship with them as an excuse to change your mind about things. For instance, when I married my husband I knew that he enjoyed playing video games, if I ask him to stop playing video games because I think they are harmful and that as his wife I am concerned about his mental health... I am imposing on him my beliefs.

Another example is Adiya's imposing a religious and persecutive nature into her response as if the OP was accusing specifically Christians of being imposing. He only mentioned that his girlfriend asked him to go to church. He never mentioned anything else that was responded to and he was talking about what he read about mental health in a school textbook. Her persecution complex caused her to respond in a defensive way to something that wasn't being said, and it's an example of where personal beliefs play into disregarding common "good manners" that the OP was talking about.

Yes, common courtesy and good manners are on the decline. People fervently debate their personal opinions openly and without care of others feelings and emotions on all sides. We drive like it's a right, we talk as if we should be free to harm other peoples ideas and values and we never think about how what we say can affect the person sitting across from us. Sometimes, in all people, it is better to stay quiet and not be assuming and pushy than it is to push your own personal agenda and values.

 

[psychedelicist]

Well, I wasn't to sure of the meaning of the phrase myself (seems like every book from psychology to "self-help" to religious books use such vague phrases and words without properly defining them too well, it's impossible to read any of them without having to interpret every other sentence), so I asked the teacher, and that was how she interpreted it as well.

I did not mean the example to be offending to anyone, it was just an example. A flawed one perhaps but it gets the general point across.

 

[one love]

LOL, but your girlfriend asking you to attend church or youth groups is not impossing, it is suggesting. Impossing is when the fed tells everyone substance a is illegal and they have built anew bueracracy, the DEA, to enforce this policy.

I would consider impose a forceful action, anything else a suggestion or paradigm.

 

[Catholicism]

So my question is, if something is of great importance to you, is it right to impose on others, or should we stick to "good manners"?

It depends on the situation. Obviously we need 'good manners.' However, we may very well 'impose' every time we convict a criminal or make a law that someone disagrees with. In that sense it is definitely ‘ok’ if not good to impose. However, we should not resort to ‘bad manners’ when we impose.

 

[psychedelicist]

OK I already admitted it was a bad example. It was just the only one I could think of.

The point is, once I admit that X is very very important to me it might impose on the people closest to me. Yes it might be rude and selfish. But is it really better to have a system where no REAL purpose can be expressed because you want to have good manners towards one another?

I do realize I must sound kind of immature saying that I think it is better that one has purpose and imposes on others. But I honestly can't see it as better to have good manners than to have purpose, or see manners as more important than purpose.