The concept of ‘End’ in the depth-psychology corpus refuses any single valence, operating simultaneously as telos, terminus, finality, and eschatological horizon. Jung’s experimental metaphysics frames the end as intrinsic to any meaningful process: an experiment without an end is a static condition, not a living movement toward individuation. Heidegger’s phenomenological analysis, which permeates Jungian ontological thinking, insists that death as Dasein’s ‘end’ cannot be assimilated to ordinary modes of ending such as ripening, exhaustion, or simple cessation—death is ontologically sui generis, a structural possibility, not a biographical conclusion. Hillman complicates teleology further by identifying active imagination’s ‘paradoxical limit of endlessness’ as coextensive with the Heraclitean infinity of psyche itself; here the end is precisely what cannot be reached, and self-understanding remains uroboric. The Stoic tradition, mediated through Nussbaum and Long-Sedley, treats the ‘end’ (telos) as the supreme ethical criterion—living in agreement with nature—while Derrida’s Kantian analysis exposes the aporia whereby an unconditioned moral end can only be exemplified by the very human being it supposedly transcends. In eschatological registers, Edinger reads the Apocalypse as the archetypal image of the world’s end as collective individuation. Across these voices, ‘End’ functions as the organizing tension between process and closure, purposiveness and openness, death and transformation.