Beauty occupies a privileged and contested position across the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as metaphysical principle, psychological necessity, and therapeutic criterion. The Neoplatonic inheritance is foundational: Plotinus, elaborating Plato’s Symposium and Diotima’s ladder, treats Beauty not as a property of matter but as the luminous overflow of the Intellectual-Principle, accessible only to a soul that has itself become beautiful. This ontological claim — that the apprehension of Beauty presupposes an inner likeness — runs as a subterranean current through the entire tradition. Hillman radicalizes it for depth psychology, arguing that a psychology that does not begin in aesthetics cannot be genuinely psychological, since beauty is the essential characteristic of Psyche’s image and the soul is irreducibly aesthetic in nature. Moore consolidates this into a therapeutic maxim: where soul is neglected, beauty is placed last, and care of the soul therefore demands a recovery of aesthetic attentiveness. McNiff extends this into art-therapy practice, where beauty names the unique authentic nature of a particular thing and its perception becomes a healing act. McGilchrist approaches the question from neurological and evolutionary angles, demonstrating that beauty exceeds reproductive utility and is irreducible to biological function, challenging reductionist accounts. The Orthodox-Sufi axis, represented by the Philokalia tradition and Ibn ‘Arabi as transmitted through Vaughan-Lee, frames beauty as the soul’s reflection of divine quality. Tensions remain sharp: between beauty as transcendent Form and beauty as immanent sensory fact; between beauty as aesthetic category and beauty as ethical-psychological criterion.