So you don't like Zizek. Thats fair. But comparing him to Nietche is not. He is a philosophy popularizer. He writes a lot about some of the greats, himself, li

So you don't like Zizek. Thats fair. But comparing him to Nietche is not. He is a philosophy popularizer. He writes a lot about some of the greats, himself, like almost all other contempararies not being one himself. My impression is not that his academic writings are 'pop', in any way comparable to Dan Brown. I have only read a little but he has published. Some of it is essayistic in nature some of it quite heavy. I get your point. But just because your a not one of the absoulte greatest there ever was, it doesn't him instantly become a superficial literary con-artist the way dan brown has become to be regarded. Also he seems quite well read and a great analyzer. Not that i agree with all he says, but he is not trying to push agendas as other pop-philosophers are. A better example of some one being "Dan Brownish"would be sam harris. He is not respected in any way in the acedemia of philoshophy, he doesn't reference the history og the historiagrahy of the field, and simply doesnt seem on-level despite writing a lot of pop-philosophy and being regarded publicy as a true academic. Zizek is actually a respected academic.