The history of philosophy of education is like a Bildungsroman, and that could perhaps explain why questions such as “What is the philosophy of education?” assume an ontological dimension that isn’t suited to the experience, specific to it, of becoming. The subject would not improve by adding to this question a hermeneutic one: what does it mean?, which would bind it to a matter of mere production of interpretations. If the first question is dominated by an essentialist invocation, the second one connects the discipline to the universalist pretension of interpretation. What it’s gained in “meaning” is lost in “sense”, and the relationship with the world based on the production of presence is eventually forgotten. The term presence here means a spatio-temporal relationship with the world: what becomes “present” is a kind of poetic production (poîesis) with which we become present, tangible, in what we think and what we do.