Fragility occupies a philosophically charged position within the depth-psychology corpus, functioning as both a structural feature of human existence and a diagnostic category for evaluating what is genuinely valuable in a life. The term’s most systematic treatment appears in Nussbaum’s landmark study, where fragility names the constitutive susceptibility of the good life — friendship, political community, virtuous activity — to fortune, circumstance, and loss. For Nussbaum, drawing on Greek tragedy and Aristotelian ethics, fragility is not pathology but the necessary condition of genuine value: to love anything truly is to court its loss. This position stands in productive tension with traditions — Stoic, Platonic, and certain strands of Buddhist thought — that seek to purge or transcend such vulnerability in the name of stability and self-sufficiency. Hillman reads fragility as integral to the puer archetype, locating it in the structural wound of spirit at its inception. Maté and Real approach fragility through the lens of masculine psychology and trauma, arguing that culturally enforced invulnerability is itself a form of damage — the suppression of fragility becomes the wound. McGilchrist complicates the picture by introducing the antifragile: vulnerability, properly managed, becomes the precondition of resilience rather than its opposite. Across these voices, fragility emerges as irreducible — neither to be eliminated nor merely lamented, but understood as the price paid for genuine human value.