Causality stands at the center of one of depth psychology’s most consequential epistemological debates: whether the psyche and its meaningful events can be adequately accounted for within a strictly causal-mechanistic framework, or whether such a framework must be supplemented—or even displaced—by principles of finality, meaning, and acausal connection. Jung occupies the pivotal position, insisting that causality is a point of view, not an absolute law, and that psychological phenomena demand a complementary finalistic or teleological orientation. His theory of synchronicity constitutes the most radical challenge: it proposes that certain coincidences of inner and outer events are connected not by causal chains but by equivalence of meaning, thus designating an ‘acausal connecting principle’ alongside causality in the scientific picture of the world. Von Franz extends this challenge by linking synchronicity to quantum-physical indeterminacy and to the theological architecture of Cartesian determinism. McGilchrist interrogates causality from a neurological and philosophical standpoint, questioning whether the Aristotelian isolation of causal factors can capture the integral wholeness of becoming. The Stoic tradition, as recovered by Long and Sedley, complicates the field further by insisting on a thoroughgoing causal nexus that grounds fate and determinism. Ricoeur, operating in the phenomenological register, distinguishes the causality of agents from the causality of events, preserving a space for initiative and responsibility. Across these positions, the tension between linear-mechanistic causality and more capacious, pluralistic models of causation—formal, final, acausal—proves constitutive for depth psychology’s self-understanding.