Many people in the philosophy department can't accept his way of discussing knowledge. He came here without citing literature or showing anything. At first glance, it is a bluff, but in fact it is a typical folk philosophy style. He also kept silent on cutting-edge issues. To put it bluntly, his practice does not conform to the academic norms of philosophical research.
His knowledge reserve and understanding far exceed that of most students and even teachers in domestic philosophy departments at present, and his attitude towards this subject is sincere and full of enthusiasm, far higher than that of many philosophy departments playing with the stinking thing of philosophy cos. As a popular science philosopher or a person who arouses everyone's interest, his level is definitely up to standard. As for exploring the frontier and doing research seriously, I am really not qualified and sure to judge (this is not his direction).
Philosophy is basically Lacan-Zizek school, which is relatively systematic. He spared no effort to point out the vulgarization and misunderstanding of Hegel, Kant, Schelling and Fichte by later generations. His interpretation of many thoughts and figures in the history of philosophy is quite special, so some people often compare him in the comment area.