Crassus--after listening to Antonius explain the difference between the middle, the low and the high styles; after listening to Antonius discuss the appropriate method of countering logical, and emotional appeals; in short, after listening to Antonius continually advocate and explain technical proficiency—turns the dialogue to a discussion of the relationship between oratory and philosophy. This turns out to be another effort, by Crassus, to argue that the orator must know everything imaginable. According to Crassus, there is nothing outside of the orator’s purview or responsibility, no bit of human knowledge not contained in the ideal orator’s library. Crassus, however, does not think that poetry and philosophy should be private pursuits, nor does he think that they will lead to ultimate truth. Rather, he advocates the orator’s exposure to them as enriched examples of human argument. If philosophy cannot guide us to a virtuous life, what is the virtue in its pursuit? Why would Crassus--a man who sez that human knowledge is limited, that human decisions are most often made in contingent circumstances based on probabilistic reasoning—say that the virtuous orator should study philosophy (a discourse that often promises a royal road to virtue) while also maintaining that this discourse gives no royal road to virtue, just another series of arguments?