Praxis occupies a contested but generative position across the depth-psychology corpus, drawing its force from an ancient tripartite distinction—theoria, praxis, poiésis—that successive thinkers have alternately preserved, collapsed, and radically reinterpreted. Ricoeur, the corpus’s most sustained theorist of the term, insists on retaining Aristotle’s plurality rather than forcing praxis into a hegemonic unity with acting or power-to-act; for him, praxis names a hierarchy of human doing that culminates in narrative configuration and the ‘good life,’ binding ethics, selfhood, and temporal existence into a single hermeneutic arc. Vernant anchors the classical distinction: where poiésis is a kinesis whose end lies beyond itself in the product, praxis is energeia whose actuality resides within the act—a contrast that governs much subsequent thinking about authentic agency. Giegerich introduces a pointed critical inflection, arguing that depth-psychology degenerates into mere pragmatism the moment its theoretical outlook is instrumentalized; paradoxically, he insists that genuine praxis must itself remain theoretical rather than practical. Hillman traces the word’s dayworld, ego-laden etymology only to subvert it, proposing that psychotherapeutic work with dreams is a praxis in the sense of skilled exercise rather than purposive intervention. Lacan, reading Plato’s to pragma, identifies praxis with the essential thing from which theory itself emerges. Evagrius’s Praktikos supplies the corpus’s ascetic register, treating practical life as the disciplined preparation of the soul for contemplative gnosis. Together these voices reveal praxis as a term perpetually in tension between action and contemplation, ethics and theory, technique and transformation.