Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘cure’ occupies a contested and philosophically charged position. It is not treated as a self-evident therapeutic goal but rather interrogated, qualified, and in certain traditions radically displaced. Thomas Moore draws the sharpest distinction, opposing cure — with its implication of finality and problem-elimination — to ‘care,’ an ongoing, imaginative attention to the soul that refuses the heroic fantasy of resolution. Bleuler, writing from psychiatry, exposes the epistemological incoherence of the concept itself: without a standard of restitutio ad integrum, ‘cure’ becomes an arbitrary socially contingent designation. Hillman redirects the problem entirely, insisting that cure of the shadow requires love rather than technique — a turn from ego-consolidation toward the soul’s darker necessities. In the group-therapy literature, particularly Flores drawing on Kohut and Yalom, cure is reconceptualized as the accretion of psychological structure through relational experience, with ‘curative factors’ identifiable and rankable. Campbell and von Franz invoke the archaic template of the wounded healer, suggesting that cure is never the physician’s unilateral achievement but emerges from within the sufferer’s own depths, activated by sacred environment. Nussbaum locates in Hellenistic philosophy an ancient ‘therapeutic’ model in which philosophical reasoning itself constitutes the curative art against false belief. The corpus thus stages a sustained argument over whether cure is a legitimate aspiration, a dangerous illusion, or a term requiring complete reconceptualization.