The term ‘Inferior Man’ traverses the depth-psychology corpus along two distinct but occasionally convergent axes. The first is typological and intrapsychic: in Jungian and post-Jungian discourse, the ‘inferior man’ names that aspect of the personality organised around the least differentiated, most unconscious function — the inferior function — whose eruptions bring shame, regression, and contra-sexual autonomy, yet whose integration is indispensable to individuation. Von Franz, Quenk, Beebe, and Sharp develop this axis extensively, treating the inferior man as a characterological figure, an inner dramatis persona embodying what the dominant attitude represses. The second axis is cosmological and ethical, drawn directly from the I Ching as mediated by Richard Wilhelm: here the ‘inferior man’ designates the morally undeveloped or passion-governed person whose ascendancy in public life signals a time of Standstill, and from whom the superior man must withdraw — not in hatred but in disciplined reserve. The Stoic philosophical tradition, via Long and Sedley, supplies a third, technical inflection: the inferior man as the non-sage whose assents lack the certitude of genuine cognition. The convergence of these usages within a single concordance illuminates a persistent depth-psychological concern: the inner inferior and the outer inferior man are homologous — both represent the domain of undifferentiated energy pressing upward, demanding response that is neither repression nor capitulation.