Therapeutic Philosophy occupies a distinctive and contested position within the depth-psychology corpus, designating that tradition in which philosophical inquiry is construed not as disinterested speculation but as a curative practice directed at the suffering soul. The corpus reveals three principal axes of tension. First, there is the historical axis: Nussbaum recovers the Hellenistic schools—Epicurean, Stoic, Skeptic—as the originary practitioners of philosophy-as-medicine, wherein argument itself is the therapeutic instrument and disordered belief the disease. Sharpe and Ure trace this lineage forward through Schopenhauer, who reclaims the ancient therapeutic ideal only to contest its rationalist optimism, and through Nietzsche, who assumes the role of philosophical physician diagnosing the pathologies of modernity. Second, there is the institutional axis: Jung argues with characteristic candor that psychotherapists are already, whether they acknowledge it or not, philosophical doctors, working at the indistinguishable boundary of philosophy and religion nascent. Third, there is the methodological axis: the question of whether rational argument, contemplative practice, narrative, or somatic engagement constitutes the properly therapeutic medium remains unresolved across authors. Brazier’s Zen therapeutics, Hollis’s demand that psychotherapy reclaim the life of the spirit, and Moore’s soul-care each represent different resolutions to this methodological dispute. What unites these voices is the conviction that healing cannot be separated from the question of how one ought to live.