Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘Man’ functions not as a neutral anthropological category but as a site of contested psychological, mythological, and ontological inquiry. The tradition divides broadly along three axes. First, the classical metaphysical strand — running from Plotinus through Paracelsus and into Jungian alchemy — posits Man as a microcosm, the meeting-point of cosmic and chthonic forces, potentially identical with the Primordial or Anthropos figure. Second, the analytical-psychological strand, represented most fully by Moore, Hollis, and the Jungian men’s movement literature, treats Man as a developmental project: masculine maturity is not given but achieved through initiation, archetypal engagement, and the progressive integration of King, Warrior, Magician, and Lover energies. Here the term carries urgent normative weight — ‘Man psychology’ names both the ideal and its chronic contemporary failure. Third, a philosophical-phenomenological thread (Derrida reading Heidegger, Plotinus on essence) interrogates whether Man names a substance, an activity of soul, a Reason-Principle, or a relational achievement. The tensions among these registers — Man as cosmic symbol, as psychological task, as philosophical puzzle — make this one of the corpus’s most generative and contested nodes.