Locating the concept of the third in the debate about countertransference that began in the 1950s, the authors maintain that it originated to solve problems stemming from the recognition that the analytic encounter takes place between two individual subjects. This recognition can lead to discomfort for the analyst, once objective criteria to interpret reality have been lost due to adhesion to a dialectical constructionist perspective; it also implies a deeper involvement arising from the abandonment of neutrality. The concept of the third is often invoked to help avoid these risks. However, the authors maintain that only the human subject itself can grasp the self reflexively; this view has a referent in the Hegelian concept of self-consciousness and is also supported by the findings of infant research.