The term ‘visible’ occupies a pivotal and contested position throughout the depth-psychology corpus, functioning less as a simple perceptual category than as a threshold concept marking the boundary between manifest reality and its concealed ground. Aristotle establishes the foundational ontology: the visible is constituted by colour and light, dependent on the transparent medium, yet pointing always toward what conditions visibility without itself being seen. Plato extends this into metaphysics, positing the Good as the author of visibility — the sun as its emblem — while the Timaeus identifies the created world precisely through its visible, tangible, sensible character. Hillman’s archetypal psychology works this terrain most richly: the invisible presses against visible surfaces, demanding an eye trained to perceive the daimonic and the angelic within the phenomenal. Beauty, for Hillman following the Neoplatonists, is invisible presence in visible form. Merleau-Ponty’s late ontology, as mobilised by Abram, frames the visible and invisible as co-constitutive dimensions of one carnal fabric. Vernant illuminates the Greek problem of making the invisible divine visible in cult images — absence inscribed in presence. The Gnostic tradition inverts the valuation, treating the visible realm as transient and pain-bearing. Across these traditions, the visible is never merely given; it is always already haunted by what it conceals, frames, and reveals.