Ramus sets out to debunk Quintillian’s claims by dissecting his work into more precise categories. He maintains that Quintillian intermingles rhetoric with other disciplines thus confusing its definition. For Ramus, an artist is defined only by the rules of his art. Using this line of reasoning, Ramus states that Quintillian mistakenly labels an orator as someone who is an ideal leader, possesses perfect virtue, and is skilled in various disciplines. He goes as far to say it’s “as if [Quintillian] makes him a god rather than just a man skilled in a single art”. While Ramus does offer a more precise view of rhetoric as the “style and delivery” of subject matter, he also appears to ignore one of its purposes; Morality or virtue plays a crucial role in the use of rhetoric even though it doesn’t define this term. Ramus insists that if moral philosophy were a part of rhetoric “it would have to be expounded in some part of rhetoric” and since Quintillian hasn’t done this, morality is not a part of rhetoric. Despite his argument against Quintillian, Ramus seems to ignore Quintillian’s simple definition of rhetoric as the art of “speaking well”. In fact, Quintillian’s idea of rhetoric appears to resonate with Ramus’ definition. Ramus on the other hand gives a more thorough understanding of the rhetorical process, but he doesn’t acknowledge Quintillian’s point that a true orator is one who aims for truth even if he himself doesn’t know the Truth. I believe Quintillian was attempting to see the larger picture about the use of rhetoric rather than just the rhetorical process.

In Vico’s text, he dives into methods of teaching claiming that imagination and memory should be the primary foci of early education. We see this in today’s education with the emphasis on standardized testing; however, I believe that students in high school should have more instruction on developing critical thinking skills. There seems to be a gap between college and high school education in terms of developing effective arguments for essays. Vico also values ethics seen through his description on the different types of men. He breaks this down into the fool, the astute ignoramus, the learned but imprudent individual, and the sage. Following this advice, the aim for truth and practical use of knowledge should enrich one’s life and enable him to confront trials. From Vico’s argument, knowledge appears to be highly important but without the search for “eternal truth” one toils through life as an unwise individual. I believe education should focus more instruction on ethics; however, we are a country with various beliefs and religions. How we could come to an agreement is beyond words. That’s not to say that ethics should be thrown out the window but only that it’s a difficult subject.