Weakness occupies a remarkably ambivalent position across the depth-psychology corpus. Far from denoting mere deficit, it functions as a liminal category whose valuation shifts dramatically depending on context, tradition, and psychological framework. In the Jungian and post-Jungian literature, weakness appears as a precondition for transformation: Edinger reads Christ’s submission to degradation and failure as a deliberate transvaluation—the crucifixion enacts what the ego in its developmental pride cannot tolerate, namely the sanctification of insufficiency. Kurtz extends this logic into the AA tradition, where the public declaration of alcoholic weakness becomes the very mechanism of spiritual community and redemption. Von Franz, by contrast, introduces a clinical precision, distinguishing weak personality structure as a psychological constitutional reality—not a moral failing but an incapacity to sustain tension—with real consequences for how the unconscious presents its material in analysis. Aurobindo, approaching from a Vedantic standpoint, dissolves the binary entirely, reading weakness as a contracted mode of the one divine will-force. The Philokalia literature holds the most complex position: weakness as human fallibility that God actively employs against demonic strategies, yet willful reliance on weakness as a spiritual posture is itself rebuked. Moore and Hillman interrogate weakness’s shadow face in masculine psychology—the Weakling pole lurking beneath tyrannic inflation. Together, these voices establish weakness as not merely a psychological problem to be overcome, but a site where limitation, grace, transformation, and shadow intersect.