Besides, there is nothing seriously wrong with Marinoff's account. So, this criticism seems pointless. Elsewhere, Munteanu makes a great deal out of a grammatical error. He insinuates much, but argues little. He just mentions it.
Philosophers become some sort of preventive health professionals, determined to alleviate suffering.
He doesn't say. I know that many people don't want philosophy to have anything to do with therapy, but he, and they, don't say why it shouldn't. I'd be happy to hash this out further if someone will tell me why philosophy cannot or should not have therapeutic uses, and why one who performs such services is unjustified in charging for them. But those that are alive make their profits through the university system, giving lectures that pretend to be educational. It seems at least arguable that such soothing sophisms not only are irresponsible, but could endanger the lives of people with mental illness who might buy into them with the hope that somehow this is the magic bullet they've long been searching for.