Jonathan Swift

I can't comment on its soundness, but the form is valid as it confirms the antecedent.

Rewritten as a conditional syllogism:

P1: If words, then nothing but wind.

P2: Leaning is nothing but words (affirming the antecedent, "words." not the consequent; affirming the consequent would be a fallacy)

C:  Therefore, learning is nothing but wind.

The statement seems logically valid. If we accept the premises as true, "learning = words" and "words = wind" takes us to "learning=wind".

However, I doubt both premises, so I have trouble accepting the conclusion as true.

Not being sure what "wind" means in this context, I see an argument by gibberish and perhaps even equivocation, depending on how Mr. Swift uses "wind". 

I think it's just an attempt at a deep philosophical statement...that falls flat because it's too vague to make sense of.

But...

P1) Words (A) are wind (B)

P2) Learning (C) is words (A)

C) Learning (C) is wind (B)

As Prof M points out, this is a valid argument (affirming the antecedent).