The prospective function of symbols occupies a pivotal position in the depth-psychological corpus, marking the boundary where Jungian thought most decisively parts ways with Freudian retrospective determinism. Jung’s foundational claim — elaborated across the Collected Works, Psychological Types, and the dream seminars — is that unconscious productions, particularly symbols and dreams, do not merely encode repressed historical material but orient the psyche toward future possibilities of adaptation and individuation. The canonical locus is Jung’s observation in The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche that, under conditions of pronounced maladaptation, the normally compensatory function of the unconscious becomes ‘a guiding, prospective function.’ This teleological dimension, which Jung partly credited to Alphonse Maeder, distinguishes the symbol from the sign: the symbol, as an expression of a relatively unknown psychic content, points beyond what consciousness can already formulate, thereby lending the psyche its forward-moving, transformative capacity. Samuels situates this within Jung’s synthetic or constructive method, showing how the prospective reading of symbolic material underpins developmental theory as well as clinical practice. Papadopoulos and the Handbook tradition extend this to argue that neurosis itself can be understood as the failure to recognize the prospective nature of religious and psychological symbols. The transcendent function, individuation, and the sign/symbol distinction are the essential satellites of this term.