It would seem that it is quite useful, and not just for obviously practical reasons, to speak more than one languages. Surely English is mostly used in the western world as some sort of common language, so if one knows it then he has access to most of the information which gets to be presented in a notable way in the media he is aware of and can keep an eye on.
However i think that knowing a second language gives an advantage in the ability to examine what language is. If you are monolingual then it is less likely that you can observe how different the dynamics in languages are. As Plato had argued, if there is only one item of some given nature or form, then it is by definition the prototype. But if at least two items of that nature appear, despite what minor or more pronounced differences exist between them, the prototype now becomes a theoretical model, which would be linked to both existent items.
So it is easier to notice that the language itself is quite distinct from the human need for expression. It can form or limit it. It is not one and the same with it. It seems very likely that cultures were evolving very dependent on their language, and despite all being cultures of humans, they were aspiring (consciously or not) to present in clarity some different shape that the particular linguistic tools they had could be used so as to present and give meaning to.
-You can reflect on the importance of knowing more than one languages, and to anything in the OP if you wish too as well
However i think that knowing a second language gives an advantage in the ability to examine what language is. If you are monolingual then it is less likely that you can observe how different the dynamics in languages are. As Plato had argued, if there is only one item of some given nature or form, then it is by definition the prototype. But if at least two items of that nature appear, despite what minor or more pronounced differences exist between them, the prototype now becomes a theoretical model, which would be linked to both existent items.
So it is easier to notice that the language itself is quite distinct from the human need for expression. It can form or limit it. It is not one and the same with it. It seems very likely that cultures were evolving very dependent on their language, and despite all being cultures of humans, they were aspiring (consciously or not) to present in clarity some different shape that the particular linguistic tools they had could be used so as to present and give meaning to.
-You can reflect on the importance of knowing more than one languages, and to anything in the OP if you wish too as well
