Within the depth-psychology corpus, love resists reduction to a single register. Jung maps its entire vertical axis — from the amor Dei of Origen and the mystical Gottesminne down through conjugal union to the point where ‘the pure flame of Eros sets fire to sexuality’ — insisting that the very word ‘love’ is an obstacle to clear analysis precisely because its range is so vast. Fromm approaches love as an art requiring character development and productive orientation, arguing that exclusive or idolatrous love is a failure of growth rather than its pinnacle. Hillman, drawing on Plato’s Phaedrus and archetypal psychology, treats love as the work of the daimon and anima/animus, arguing that manic romantic love exceeds both genetic and environmental explanation. Moore, following the Platonic Symposium, stresses love’s intimate relation to death, emptiness, and the underworld of soul. Corbin and Vaughan-Lee import Sufi frameworks in which the human beloved is an epiphany of the Divine, and Ibn ‘Arabi’s tripartite distinction between divine, spiritual, and natural love becomes a template for understanding creatural eros. Estés foregrounds love as a courage to remain present through the Life/Death/Life nature. Von Franz distinguishes sharply between love as archetypal affect — a force belonging to the gods — and feeling as a psychological function. Collectively, these voices render love irreducibly complex: simultaneously evolutionary bonding mechanism, soul-making force, projective screen for anima and animus, and mystical path toward the Divine.