Gert Biesta astutely criticizes the politics of learning through which learning has been popularized and exalted. He offers a valuable critical diagnostics of this politics, but, I argue, his conclusions about 'going beyond learning' incriminate learning wholesale. Through a close reading of one of Biesta's related articles, I show that he sweepingly indicts learning "per se ," and not only its politics in the 'learning age'. Biesta departs from current theoretical underpinnings of learning but deep down accepts too much of the conventional semantics of learning. His advancing a denaturalization of learning and his dismissing the assumption that learning is omnipresent and inextricable from living make unnecessary and unintended concessions to the hegemonic idiom and politics of learning. Instead of attaching undue weight to 'beyond learning' and to 'refusing the learner identity', I defend a theorization of learning(s) in plural that complicates both the self-understandings and the critiques of the era.