The ‘Will to Life’ (Wille zum Leben) enters the depth-psychology corpus principally through Schopenhauer’s metaphysical identification of a blind, universal striving as the innermost nature of existence — a striving that individual ego-consciousness both expresses and is enslaved by. Across the corpus, the term functions as a diagnostic instrument: wherever suffering, compulsion, or the futility of rational self-governance appear, the Will to Life lurks as their ground. Schopenhauer’s heirs in this library divide sharply. For the therapeutic tradition flowing through Yalom, Rank, and May, the Will to Life is transmuted into a clinical problem of volition — how the individual may achieve genuine willing against the blind impulse-life that drives behavior unconsciously. Nietzsche retools the concept entirely: the Will to Life is subordinated to, and finally overcome by, the Will to Power, which he reads as the true ‘unexhausted, procreating life-will.’ Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga offers a third position, distinguishing the gross ‘will to live’ — a degraded vital impulse — from a purified ‘will to delight’ proper to the soul. What unites these positions is the recognition that the Will to Life, left unexamined, forecloses individuation, authentic choice, and spiritual liberation; the question each author presses is how consciousness might subordinate, redirect, or transcend it.