Intrapsychic conflict occupies a foundational position across the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as a diagnostic category, a metapsychological axiom, and a marker of the terrain through which individuation and therapeutic transformation must pass. Freud’s dynamic model, as Yalom succinctly restates it, posits forces in conflict within the individual as the generative engine of thought, emotion, and psychopathology alike — a premise adopted, revised, and contested by virtually every subsequent voice in the tradition. Horney reframes the concept in rigorously structural terms, distinguishing the conflict internal to the pride system from the deeper war between the pride system and the real self, insisting that the neurotic is constitutionally ‘at war with himself.’ Jung extends the field dramatically: for him, intrapsychic conflict is not merely clinical but cosmological, its failure of recognition producing political violence and social catastrophe. When conflict ‘remains an intrapsychic phenomenon in the mind of the discerning person,’ projection onto the collective is forestalled; when it does not, murderous history ensues. Across Hall, Edinger, von Franz, and Hollis, the unresolved opposition of inner forces is understood as both wound and invitation — the productive tension from which consciousness, coniunctio, and individuation emerge. The concept thus spans the clinical and the archetypal, the personal and the civilizational.