The term ‘Ideal Form’ traverses the depth-psychology corpus along at least three distinct axes that refuse easy synthesis. In the Neoplatonic strand, anchored by Plotinus, Ideal Form denotes an ontological category — a self-subsistent, impassible principle whose mere presence generates activity in matter while remaining itself untouched by any affection; it is the tranquil engine of all vegetal, psychic, and intellectual life. Plato’s Timaeus supplies the geometrical and cosmological substrate for this vision, treating elemental forms as the irreducible structural determinants of physical reality. A second axis, biological-psychological, appears in Barrett’s critique of pre-Darwinian essentialism: the ‘ideal form’ of each species served as the normative template against which individual variation was measured as error — a paradigm that post-Darwinian science dismantled but that, Barrett argues, covertly persists in classical emotion theory. A third axis is psychoanalytic and developmental: Schore, Cairns, and related authors locate the ego-ideal as an internalized cluster of ideal-form images whose failure to be met by the self produces shame and regulates self-esteem. Aurobindo’s contribution is philosophically the most ambitious, reading the Ideal as an eternal Reality already held in divine Real-Idea, toward which evolving mind grows. Simondon’s process-ontological treatment complicates all these positions by challenging the hylemorphic framework itself, arguing that form is never a finished mold but a dynamic limit on the actualization of potential energy. The stakes across all positions concern whether Ideal Form is discovered, imposed, or emergent.