Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘mortal’ operates as far more than a biological descriptor; it names the ontological condition that makes meaning, value, and psychological transformation possible. The range of treatments is striking. For Hillman, mortality is inseparable from the archetypal wound—the Achillean heel that simultaneously grants swiftness and ensures death is the substrate of the human condition itself, not a pathology to be overcome. Peterson, reading Homer through Jung, argues that value is literally forged by mortality’s three constraints—permanent loss, radical uncertainty, and utter powerlessness—and that the gods are structurally excluded from this grammar of value-creation. Yalom approaches mortality as the primary existential datum whose denial generates the full spectrum of psychopathology. Campbell and Edinger, drawing on mythological and alchemical sources respectively, treat the mortal/immortal polarity as a dialectical engine: the hero is precisely the hybrid figure who is both, and mortificatio names the alchemical death that precedes quintessential transformation. Plato’s Timaeus frames the cosmos itself around this division, with the divine creating immortal principles and delegating mortal bodies to lesser craftsmen. Across these positions, the central tension is whether mortality is a deficit to be transcended or the very precondition of depth, heroism, and soulful existence.