Destiny occupies a central and contested position within the depth-psychological corpus, where it functions simultaneously as a cosmological given, a psychological task, and a mythological inheritance. The term resists reduction to mere fatalism: across the major voices, destiny is distinguished from blind determinism precisely through the intervention of consciousness. Rudhyar, working from an astrological-philosophical frame, defines destiny as ‘the ordered plan by the actualization of which as perfect a personality can become a fact of life as was potentially contained in the seed-moment of the individual’s birth,’ anchoring it in a teleological conception of the self. Hillman, by contrast, roots destiny in the acorn theory and the Platonic myth of the daimon — the soul chooses its lot before birth, the heart holds the image of its destiny, and the companion daimon remembers what the incarnate self has forgotten. Frankl approaches the term existentially: destiny is what differs from man to man, composed of life’s concrete tasks, and when suffering is one’s destiny, accepting it becomes one’s singular vocation. Edinger frames destiny theologically, as the recognition that a transpersonal agency — not the ego — is responsible for one’s misfortune, transforming Job-like adversity into meaning. Greene and Conforti add the dimension of transformation: fate becomes destiny when self-consciousness enters. The tension throughout is between destiny as imposed necessity and destiny as self-actualized calling — a polarity that defines the field.