The term ‘opinion’ (Greek: doxa) occupies a contested and philosophically charged position throughout the depth-psychology corpus, functioning not merely as a casual expression of personal preference but as an epistemological category with profound psychological consequences. The corpus reveals two broad streams of treatment. The first, anchored in Plato and elaborated by Havelock, constructs opinion as the cognitive condition of those who perceive only the flux of sensible particulars rather than eternal forms — a faculty intermediate between knowledge and ignorance, between being and non-being, and characteristically associated with poetic culture, unreflective acceptance of convention, and the crowd’s unreasoned assent. The second stream, developed by the Stoics as reconstructed by Inwood and Long-Sedley, refines opinion technically into a species of assent — specifically, assent given to impressions that are incognitive or false, with the ‘fresh opinion’ playing a decisive causal role in the generation of the passions. Fromm extends this critical lineage into social psychology, exposing how individuals internalize authoritative opinions while sustaining the illusion of autonomous thought. Aristotle complicates the picture by distinguishing opinion from imagination, science, and intelligence while leaving open the boundary between opinion and sensation. Together, these voices locate ‘opinion’ at the intersection of epistemology, psychology, and cultural critique — precisely where the depth-psychological tradition does its most searching work.