The conflict of opposites stands as one of the most generative and demanding concepts in the depth-psychological corpus. Jung places it at the very centre of psychic life: the tension between paired contraries — conscious and unconscious, light and dark, good and evil, spirit and matter — is not a pathology to be dissolved but the dynamo of all psychological energy. Across his theoretical writings, clinical seminars, and private correspondence, Jung insists that no conflict is resolved when one pole simply defeats the other; authentic resolution demands that the opposites be held simultaneously until a third thing — the symbol, the transcendent function, what he calls a ‘coin split into two halves which fit together precisely’ — emerges of its own accord, felt as grace. This position sharply distinguishes Jungian therapy from reductive approaches that identify health with one polarity. Hoeller traces the motif through Gnostic syzygies and ancient mythologies, arguing that the transformative value of conflict was accepted unreservedly by pre-Christian cultures. Edinger anchors the theme in alchemy and in Jung’s Answer to Job, where the divine itself is compelled to reconcile its own warring aspects. Neumann extends the stakes to ethics, insisting that genuinely moral situations are irresolvable conflicts of duty. McGilchrist independently corroborates the generative logic of opposites from neuroscience and philosophy, citing James, Heraclitus, and Schleiermacher. What unites the corpus is the conviction that the conflict of opposites, borne consciously, is the very medium of individuation.