The psychic interlocutor names that interior other who speaks, responds, and argues from within — an autonomous psychic agency encountered in dialogue rather than merely observed as symptom. In the depth-psychological corpus this figure appears most fully theorized in Jung, who recovers the alchemical designation aliquem alium internum, ‘a certain other one within,’ to describe what analysts and meditants have always met when they genuinely question themselves and receive an answer that does not feel self-authored. Two registers of tension run through the literature. The first is ontological: is this inner voice a dissociated complex, an autonomous archetype, a spirit, or merely secondary association dressed up as Other? Jung resists premature closure on every side, conceding the spirit hypothesis its practical yield while insisting empirical agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position. The second tension is methodological: how does one sustain genuine dialogue with the inner figure without either dismissing it as ‘mere’ association or surrendering critical consciousness to it entirely? Hillman, extending Jung through an imaginal lens, insists the proper posture is not interpretation but interrogation — not ‘what does this image mean?’ but ‘what does it want?’ The Nussbaumian strand of the corpus, drawing on Hellenistic therapeutics, provides a parallel grammar through the external interlocutor of philosophical dialogue, making legible the structural kinship between Socratic elenchus and active imagination. Together these streams illuminate the psychic interlocutor as a site where self-knowledge, autonomy, and the grammar of address are inseparable concerns.