I think Antonius would give Socrates an aneurism.

Of course he's a panderer according to foundationalist (I accidentally typed 'fundamentalist') theory. One of the first things in that damned "Everything's an Argument" book is a clarification of the terms "argument" and "persuasion"; argument need not be aimed at convincing someone of something, but Antonius seems singularly concerned with persuasion. There are so many possible arguments that, while clever, do not even approach the concept of "in good faith." Antonius seems to be saying, "to hell with good faith--it's better to convince people" because...he says, what, it's more relevant to the subject at hand? I'm not sure I understand his deeper motivation for being a manipulative whore, but I think Cicero might also be painting him in too broad of strokes (much like the opponents in the Gorgias).

P.S. Why has the forum been down for so long? This site is GHETTO.

I think the value of Antonius' invention is that it could lead to an emphasis on content - getting to the heart of issues, as opposed to the trappings of style. Although it should be used to the effect of persuasion, I don't think it is pandering on the worst level. It simply allows a broader scope of analysis. Socrates would disagree with it because it fails to acknowledge a pursuit of truth to measure arugments against. To Antonius lawyers defending the guilty are not necessarily evil. He mentions defending those who do not deny they killed someone but claim to have good reason. Socrates might be uncomfortable with this flexibility.

I think Socrates would consider Antonius to be a panderer because he is not interested in finding the truth. I agreed with Paige's post about how Antonius judges oratory on how good one uses it to persuade the audience. Socrates would be opposed to this because one could persuade the audience and still not be pursuing the truth. Antonius believes you should argue your case in the way that it will persuade the audience effectively, which Socrates would disagree with but I think it would make him a great lawyer.

It must be acknowledged that the bulk of Antonius' argument revolves around good rhetorical form, and is discussed as a means to the end of persuasiveness. But although he's interested in this end result, I noted earlier one place where he seems to make a small concession; having asked "By what other voice...than that of the orator is...the light of truth...commited to immortality? (92) he later responds; when discussing the distinction between defined v. unlimited questions, that "questions...which are undefined, unsettled, and of extreme latitude, so as to suppose that he must speak of good and evil, of things to be desired or avoided, honorable or dishonorable...of virtue, justice...and of other virtues and their opposite vices...let us take upon us that sort of subjects also, but so that it be circumscribed by moderate limits" (100). From this we could guess that he has a place for truth, but places it below or behind his main goal of effectiveness -- maybe because he sees no value in truth which isn't effective, and would rather compromise the former a little than lose it altogether through ineffective delivery?

To Antonius, the good orator is a successful orator. Instead of being concerned with the truth, he is concerned with strategy. Antonius says, "In this art, if it be an art, there are no directions how truth can be discovered, but only how it may be judged" (126). I take that to mean that the effectiveness of oratory is based on whether or not it persuades the audience. The only external standard of oratory is the judgment of the audience. This is the very definition of a panderer; like the political strategists we read about on Tuesday, Antonius believes that successful oratory is persuasive oratory.

I believe that Antonius could be interested in truth only. I would like to believe that all of his analysis on the topic of oratory is just an 'in-depth' study of the bigger picture that a wide variety of knowledge helps a person be well-rounded and more likely to see truth. But his omittance of the 'bigger picture' makes me doubt his intentions with being a great orator. I guess I just have that 'nobody really wants to cause harm and trouble, do they?' philosophy. While Antonius seems 'good', doubting his intentions is valid. So, secondly, I guess Socrates would call Antonius a panderer. BUT all I would personally need from Antonius to be convinced otherwise is a simple statement of "all of these aspects of a good orator help one attain knowledge so he can carry out the good". Like I said, I think it's my basic ideology on the human condition.

After reading this section of the reading, I have concluded that Antonius is much more interested in winning the argument than in truth. Antonius dedicates the majority of his speech to describing the various ways to successfully argue different cases. His many descriptions shows that he has put much thought into this aspect of oratory, which he believes to be of much importance.
Antonius describes defining terms as “puerile,” because definitions can easily be manipulated and because they are not useful for giving impressions to the person one is arguing towards (ex: a judge) (p. 113).
Antonius says the way one presents an argument is “the department in which the divine power and excellence of the orator is seen” (p. 115). He argues that only an ordinary understanding is needed to formulate what one will say, but that the way in which one presents the argument is the true ‘art’ of oratory. He mentions multiple times that the orators audience must be “conciliated, informed, and moved” in order to persuade (p. 116). In all of this description, he does not mention the importance of truth. Instead, he describes the many important aspects of speaking an orator must know in order to persuade his or her audience. He goes on to say that in order to argue a case well, the orator needs only to know that topic. If the orator has knowledge of the topic at hand, “nothing will escape [the orator]” (p. 123).
Antonius maintains that a dedication to philosophy does not help the orator, because it “diminishes the authority of the speaker and the credit of his speech” (p. 126). He argues that the authority of the speaker is of utmost importance when presenting a case, because the speaker is the only one able to persuade his or her audience.
Socrates would definitely call Antonius a panderer. Antonius says the most important thing during speaking is whether or not the audience “should be favorable to the speaker, and be himself so strongly moved that he may be influenced more by impulse and excitement of mind than by judgment or reflection” (p. 131). Antonius continues in his pandering way to assert that describing ones client well is sometimes more important than the merits of the cause. He also claims that a good orator will ascertain the sentiments and opinions of his or her audience and then argue with those aspects of the audience in mind. I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what Socrates’ definition of a panderer is. Sooo yes, Antonius would be considered a panderer in Socrates’ book.

Because I think Antonius is a panderer, do I need to answer the last couple of Q’s on the prompt? I will anyways.
Antonius’ perspective on oratory, although it does not discuss truth, is still an effective way to produce persuasive orators. What this offers to a society or to a democracy---I would say that it produces orators that can effectively and persuasively argue a case. Will that orator strive for truth? That’s debatable. Will that orator get the result his or her client wants? Most likely. So, the product it seems is a group of effective orators that strive to make their clients happy.