research focuses primarily on the nature of positive professional duty

at a business school.

His answer to the crisis in philosophy and "restore" its "authority in the wider culture" is to

not change its name but engage more often with issues of contemporary concern — not so much as scientists but as guardians of reason. This might encourage the wider population to think more critically, that is, to become more philosophical.

While I agree with his doubts about renaming philosophy a science, somehow I'm not surprised an ethicist has concluded that we can avoid the crisis in philosophy with contemporary issues. It's unfortunately true that the less intelligent tend to take up applied ethics because it is practical and intuitively more accessible. He doesn't realize that reducing philosophy to the needs of the fickle reasoning public and corporate and institutional needs (ethics boards) is a capitulation to the crisis.

These are essentially conceptual clarifications. And as such, they are relatively timeless philosophical truths.

Socrates attacked contemporary reason because it was not timeless. Friedland wants to bring it because because it is "relatively timeless." The phrase "relatively timeless" has the air of "sorta true" or "kind of proven." So many philosophical wars have been waged on whether philosophy can provide timeless truths, that to merge them effortlessly together makes the author sound underpowered.

Again, the site tried to eat my content when I finally hit the add comment button. "Page expired!" Why is it so dangerous to post here?

Ok figured out editing and fixed my quotes.