Friedrich Nietzsche on learning languages. What do you think about all this?

The learning of many languages fills the memory with words instead of with facts and thoughts, and this is a vessel which, with every person, can only contain a certain limited amount of contents. Therefore the learning of many languages is injurious, inasmuch as it arouses a belief in possessing dexterity and, as a matter of fact, it lends a kind of delusive importance to social intercourse. It is also indirectly injurious in that it opposes the acquirement of solid knowledge and the intention to win the respect of men in an honest way. Finally, it is the axe which is laid to the root of a delicate sense of language in our mother tongue, which thereby is incurably injured and destroyed. The two nations which produced the greatest stylists, the Greeks and the French, learned no foreign languages. But as human intercourse must always grow more cosmopolitan, and as, for instance, a good merchant in London must now be able to read and write eight languages, the learning of many tongues has certainly become a necessary evil; but which, when finally carried to an extreme, will compel mankind to find a remedy, and in some far off future there will be a new language, used at first as a language of commerce, then as a language of intellectual intercourse generally, then for all, as surely as some time or other there will be aviation. Why else should philology have studied the laws of languages for a whole century, and have estimated the necessary, the valuable, and the successful portion of each separate language?

Jan 7, 2016 11:48 AM
Comments · 3
And to answer your question, yes I agree with Nietzsche partially. Language is an inadequate way to reflect the complex reality - but the only one that we have. Unlike Nietzsche, I find it therefore, important to understand many languages ​​to learn precisely to understand these different values ​​of a culture. I look what common words are there and what words are unique in the language. And I learn not only from books but by people. Again, I agree with Nietzsche, that the pure language learning brings no new insights. Clearly, I need the common and intense conversation and that's personally important to me. What is your opinion on the subject?  
May 20, 2016
When I say the German word "tree", then arises in my mind the image of a big beautiful apple tree. It is the tree I could see as a little girl in front of my home. The result is caused by a nerve impulse (seeing the tree) and the fact that my mother has always said that this "thing" has to be called apple tree. Are you now saying to me, at the word "tree" then this nerve stimulus is ready, but there will be no accurate picture of what you mean by this word. So we have different truths. The more abstract these words the more different may be our ideas about them. In a particular culture area and with the same language universal terms like "freedom", "justice" and "nation" are often understood in a certain way, but they probably receive in a different culture area a different interpretation or valence. 
May 20, 2016

To understand Nietzsche is no "light meal" :)

He thinks of the world as a chaotic , constantly floating, cycle of becoming, suffering and dying. There is no stable world order that we could comprehend and each of our believed observations is just an interpretation. There are no established facts or truths. What we consider as truths are essential fictions for him. People need binding agreements about what has to be "right" and thus to be regarded as "true" in order to be able to live together peacefully. This task is performed by the language for Nietzsche. And he thinks that we are increasingly moving away by the linguistic abstraction from the reality of this signified things. Language is necessary but insufficient to guarantee peace. His view of things is certainly influenced by the revolution of 1848 and the subsequent period. 

May 20, 2016