The term ‘sense’ operates across multiple strata in the depth-psychology corpus, spanning ancient philosophy of perception, phenomenological accounts of embodied knowing, somatic-therapeutic frameworks, and linguistic theory. Aristotle anchors the classical pole, treating sense as the faculty by which form is received without matter, distinguishing special, common, and incidental sense-objects while insisting that perception in activity is always of particulars. Plotinus inherits and inverts this: for him the finest knowledge occurs precisely where sense falls silent and identification with the object replaces mediated sensation. In the modern somatic tradition, Gendlin’s concept of the ‘felt sense’ reanimates this debate by locating a pre-conceptual, bodily knowing that is neither raw sensation nor articulate emotion but a holistic, implicit grasp of a whole situation. Levine, Winhall, and Welwood extend Gendlin into trauma therapy, arguing that proprioception, kinesthesia, and visceral sensation constitute the most intimate register of self-knowledge and that trauma recovery depends on restoring access to these channels. Gallagher contributes phenomenological precision by distinguishing the sense of agency from the sense of ownership in voluntary movement, both grounded in body-schematic processes. McGilchrist situates ‘sense’—especially common sense—within hemispheric asymmetry, warning that the left hemisphere’s metric fixation strips elements from context and destroys their real meaning. Across these positions, the central tension is between sense as a passive, receptive channel and sense as an active, constitutive, meaning-laden orientation toward the world.