Anthropologies are different – but Man has seldom been defined as a creature of happiness. Especially in German philosophy there has been a deep scepticism against happiness, most famously in Schopenhauer's pessimistic world view, but also in the desperate visions and in the heroic cynicism following from them in Nietzsche's philosophy. Although Kant and Hegel – influenced by liberal (English) thoughts – have not under estimated the happiness of the single individual, the majority of philosophers – particularly the representatives of Philosophical Anthropology in the 20th century (Scheler, Plessner and Gehlen) – remained (as will be examined in this essay in more detail) sceptical about happiness as fulfilment. In this topos there is also an evident emotion against mass society and a cultural-critical aversion to the eudaimonia of consumerism. In this way, from the point of view of the educated elites, happiness in modern times can only be found in social and intellectual distance, e.g. in the security of contemplation (especially after fascism with its promises of an activism bringing happiness). The dominant element seems to be a philosophical fear of happiness, of decadence and of happy nivellement. Even Goethe had seen Dr. Faustus losing his life and eternal salvation when he was thinking of the moment as so beautiful that it should remain so forever. But in spite of all these attitudes and modes of sceptical thinking, it may be neither naïve nor uncritical to concur with Blaise Pascal: That pleasure is good and suffering bad does not need further evidence. The heart feels it.