Human beings have always constructed images of themselves out of the need to know their nature and give a sense to their existence. From classical philosophy up until the contemporary era there have emerged multiple visions of the human being that are closely tied to the general philosophical conceptions from which they originated. Homo religiosus, homo sapiens, homo faber, homo dionysiacus and homo creator are the principal images that human beings have elaborated of themselves. In the twentieth century, thanks to the enormous development of the sciences, the need was felt to reconsider the human being and to understand it in its entirety, synthesizing, integrating and harmonizing the results of the scientific investigations in order to recompose in a unity the multiple aspects investigated and thus achieve a corresponding global image. Placing oneself at the crossroads between philosophy, human sciences and natural sciences, philosophical anthropology wishes to retie the threads of a discussion so as to help human beings recuperate the understanding of themselves and identify the characteristic traits of their existence. Contemporary philosophical anthropology thus consists, to express it with a formula, in a reflection on the results of the sciences that in some way deal with the human being, in order to recuperate its “global image”. Scheler, Gehlen and Plessner are the authors who have provided this discipline with a new approach that is in step both with philosophical thought and with the modern developments of the sciences. Max Scheler, considered the initiator of this doctrine, was the first to feel the need to found an anthropology upon biological bases, but through the filter of a philosophical reflection. The other two Authors have continued along this line even though following a different path. All three of them have in any case felt the need to emphasize the difference between human beings and other living beings in such a way as to attribute to human beings a particular position in the cosmos. This is the preunderstanding that the three authors have in common in spite of their different itineraries, approaches and problematics.