If learning is seen as a condition for man it might be said that human beings develop through processes of learning. It might be said that the concept of learning has shortcomings due to having no direction. Therefore, it might be argued, it is problematic if the concept of learning replaces a concept of formation. The current concept of learning is criticized by the educational researcher Gert Biesta (Biesta 2009) for on the one hand to be open and maybe empty with regard to content and direction and on the other hand to take an outset in the individual learner and therefore to be an individualistic concept. The idea of this paper is to discuss if and how the current concept of learning in terms of current theories of learning are open/empty and individualistic and how a concept of formation might be necessary to give a direction to learning and on the other hand how a concept of learning might be necessary to analyze processes of formation. The idea is to view the concept of learning and the concept of formation as complementary due to on the one hand to understand learning as a motor for formation and on the other hand to view formation as a compass for processes of learning. The concept of formation is useful for the concept of learning with respect to giving a direction to learning while the concept of learning is useful for the concept of formation in order to offer analytical tools for understanding and facilitating concrete processes of learning. It will be discussed if and how a formational dimension is necessary for the concept of learning. Especially needed in current theories of learning is to explicate how mediation between an individual and a common good/general level takes place. Hegel’s description of processes of formation and learning in Phenomenologie des Geistes and Deweys pragmatic and antidualistic philosophy will be applied for the analysis and discussion.