Completeness occupies a pivotal and contested position in the depth-psychological corpus, serving as both a teleological ideal and a diagnostic criterion for the psyche’s developmental condition. Jung establishes the term’s conceptual gravity in Aion, where completeness names the voluntary acceptance of individuation’s full burden — the recognition that wholeness, unlike mere happiness, demands conscious integration of shadow, inferior function, and opposing principles. Edinger sharpens this further by opposing completeness to perfection: the masculine spirit strives toward perfection, the feminine nature principle toward completeness, and analytical work in the modern era must counterbalance an over-emphasis on the former with the latter — while remaining alert that unconscious, undifferentiated completeness is no achievement at all. Samuels, reporting post-Jungian critiques, notes Guggenbuhl-Craig’s dissatisfaction with the corpus’s tendency to speak too glowingly of ‘roundness, completeness, and wholeness’ without accounting for pathology and deficiency inherent in the self. Von Franz grounds the term in typological psychology, arguing that failure to integrate the fourth (inferior) function leaves a trinitarian psychology that perpetually skirts the wholeness completeness would require. The circle as symbol of completeness, the lapis as stone of totality, the self as quaternary rather than trinitarian structure — these are the emblematic vehicles through which the corpus presses the concept across alchemy, mythology, and clinical practice alike.