I think it’s easy to get turned off by Žižek’s kind of bombastic approach to explaining philosophy to lay people. It’s also, I’d say, hard to develop sympathy for continental philosophy, especially if we are American, and a lot of his positions seem kind of like nonsense if you don’t understand some of the underlying frameworks he uses (something he shares in common with a lot of continental philosophers) or if you don’t bridge the wider gap between reader and writer that continental philosophers tend to have.
Žižek has made comments about so many different things, so publicly, that it’s hard to avoid finding something you disagree with. But it’s also hard to avoid finding something you agree with.
Meh, Zizek may be redundant and attention-seeking, but I wouldn't call him a quack. He has done some legitimate work, even if I definitely wouldn't call myself a fan.
I like his books, but someone like Alan Watts is much more prone to quackery, IMO.
