This paper presents reflections on educational thinking in a future perspective. It is argued that education is connected with transgression. If transgression is the invariable aspect of education and the form of transgression the variable aspect, it follows that education cannot be related to a definite content, but varies with changes in the historical context. Relating education to a contemporary perspective means that, from some theoretical points of view, it does not make sense to use a concept of education in a future perspective without a previous contemporary diagnosis. The hypothesis is that education has to be conceived as a reaction to a social condition that has to be identified beforehand as a prerequisite of those educational reflections that might result in new interpretations of education. The fact that the educational process is an open one makes it problematic to operate with a future perspective on education if it is based on the assumption that it can be derived from normative instructions for action. This is partly because you cannot control the empirical circumstances under which the educational process takes place, and partly because of the complexity involved. On this background it would be absurd to expect that intended norms could be fulfilled and that you could derive instructions for action from norms.Therefore, another starting point is required for the legitimisation of the future dimension of education. Referring to scientific pedagogy as a science of education "that tries to qualify the next generation to educate the following generation", Peukert concludes that it must contain a future dimension. Peukert relates the future dimension to the concept of generation, but without using the concept of persons who are under-aged. This is contrary to traditional educational self-interpretation, which legitimised educational actions by reference to the fact that they were directed towards under-aged persons. The distinction between people who are under-aged and adults, whom Schleiermacher referred to as the younger and older generations, may be regarded as a demarcation of educational actions. The aim of traditional education was based on the adult perspective and the educational project was restricted to the younger generation. There was no lifelong perspective on educational action. At present, this kind of demarcation seems absurd because of the lifelong perspective on education. This shift of the educational perspective from a preparation for adult life to a lifelong perspective means that the traditional self- interpretation of education cannot be upheld. Educational activity has, according to Lenzen, changed into a "life accompanying care for the individual" and as a result the educational system has been transformed into a system of care (Lenzen). When education is no longer primarily a concern of the younger generation but something that both generations have to engage in until "the third age", we might say that, as far as learning is concerned, the two generations are in the same situation: lifelong learning. Thus, there is a need for educational reflection on the concept of generations on new terms. The concept of care includes a future dimension, but it cannot grasp the relationship between generations in an educational context as an exercise of power. On the contrary, it is about teachers being at the disposal of students. The future orientation of the concept of education also imposes a constraint because its directedness towards the future demands a transgression of a merely historical reconstruction. As a transgressive project education is always bound up with deconstruction, reconstruction and trials of new constructions, and educational processes proceed as open-ended, discontinuous and non-predictable processes that cannot be legitimised by necessity. The power of the concept of education is its indefiniteness.