In some value systems, the phenomenon of conflict is assessed as negative, contrary to harmony. and, ideally, should be absent. In such cases, the conflict is an error, the result of deviation-it does not matter from what, from the will of some God, from the laws of the universe, from the laws of mind, etc., etc. and "damage" to reality.
In other value systems, conflict is seen as a mechanism and condition for development. The struggle of opposites built the system of Hegel and Marxism in the competition - the principles of market economy and political struggle of democratic systems, on natural selection and the struggle for survival, evolutionary theory, etc.
But does every conflict become a mechanism for development? What are the conditions for this? Is setting on the undesirability of conflict-conducive to conflict resolution? For example, finding a synthesis or compromise? Or, on the contrary, the conscious recognition and use of conflict as a necessary tool?
In my view, the first option is a consequence of the conflict, usually unconsciously used as a reaction in the conflict. The second option allows the targeted use of conflict as to establish the General situation (the development itself), and to generate from himself the desirable traits (self-development).
