Although I started my reading agreeing with Ramus in that too many people too often are wiling to accept what they first hear or read without putting too much thought into it or without taking the time to properly and critically think about what they are accepting as true, I quickly had to move to disagree with this author.  Multiple reasons for disagreeing rather quickly come to mind.  First, as a reader I must face an ad-hominem attack.  My Argumentation professor would be proud of me, I pin pointed it right away.  Not only does Ramus focus on attacking Quintilian, but he also does it repeatedly paragraph after paragraph without making any attempts to even deceive the audience.  Even though some may argue that he attacks Quintilian’s arguments too, the constant name calling becomes a put off for me.  Second, Ramus compares Quintilian with Cicero saying that their style differ and that Cicero’s style is his virtue.  However, Ramus does not asses how their styles are different, which makes his argument weak.  Third, one of the main points argued by Ramus is the fact that Quintilian added to morality to his definition of rhetoric.  Ramus argues that people should, “. . . drive away, I say, love, hate, prejudice, levity, fickleness, and rashness. Listen to me with willing and impartial minds to the extent that unwavering reason will convince, to the extent that certain conclusion will establish, finally to the extent that truth itself-which cannot be refuted or disaproved- will hold firm.”  However, wouldn’t most people agree with the fact that truth is not definite? Actually, wouldn’t most of us agree with the fact that there possibly can be as many truths as cultures and ethnicities and the values that individuals in those cultures and ethnicities hold to be true?  Ramus does present what some may label as good arguments, especially when he makes the comparison between grammarians defined as those skilled in speaking and writing correctly and not those that do that and in addition sing well.  The same way, he argues, orators or rhetoricians should not be defined as those who have master the delivery and style of rhetoric and additionally are moral or virtuous individuals.  The issue here is that Quintilian’s truth of what rhetoricians should be like and what the art of rhetoric should imply is different from that of Ramus.  Ramus’ truth of rhetoric is that this art only has to parts, style and delivery, nothing more.  After Ramus expresses his truth, the rest of his peace becomes repulsive to me, because who is he (or who am I, in some cases) to question someone else’s truth so strongly?  In fact, later in his piece I feel that Ramus even contradicts himself as he argues that rhetoric cannot be prudence, a moral virtue, as argued by Quintilian, because virtues are provided by nature, but prudence is a virtue given by intelligence and the mind, he states. But, isn’t intelligence and the mind given by nature?