Across the depth-psychology corpus, ‘value system’ occupies a contested and generative position, naming at once a neurobiological inheritance, a phenomenological structure, a cultural formation, and a therapeutic target. Damasio grounds the concept in what he calls the brain’s ‘biological value system,’ arguing that somatic appraisal marks every image with valence prior to conscious deliberation, rendering value-laden processing fundamental rather than derivative. Siegel extends this into developmental neuroscience, distinguishing inborn motivational structures from those assembled through relational experience. Yalom, working in the existential register, treats the value system as the practical correlate of meaning: once meaning is felt, values crystallize into a code regulating action. Von Franz, reading Jung, locates the value system in the feeling function’s ‘structure of feeling memory,’ shaped by childhood and the accumulated past. ACT theorists such as Harris position values as freely chosen, present-tense orientations rather than inherited codes. McGilchrist situates value hierarchies within hemispheric asymmetry, attributing higher values to right-hemisphere affective engagement and warning against their reduction to use-value. Woodman employs the term mythologically, charting the collision between patriarchal and feminine value systems through the Demeter–Persephone complex. Simondon offers the most abstract formulation, defining value as the normativity of a system of norms—what persists across systemic transformation. The term thus serves as a crossroads where brain science, existential philosophy, clinical practice, and cultural critique meet.