Exsanguinated philosophy

In one of the university texts I have been reading recently, the author often writes that a certain philosopher is being 'over-sanguine' in his approach. I thought this was a strange word to use as I found out it means 'passionate'.

Can a philosopher be over passionate? I don't think this can be the case. Philosophy often deals with very important questions - the meaning of life and things like that. How can one not be passionate?

Academic philosophy seems a bit exsanguinated at times. The main reason for this, I believe, is that too many academic pursuits are judged by the same standards as exact science - as I argued earlier: Philosophy is an art form, not a science. Most acadamic philosophy could do with a blood transfusion!

The distinction between passion and reason is a very old one. In moral philosophy it has often been contended that passion conflicts with reason and that the latter should always have preference. Plato's myth of the charioteer in the Phaedrus illustrates this idea. The charioteer is the soul of man, while the two horses represent reason and passion. Plato's preference for reason has dominated Western culture for a long, long time.

If philosophy is an art form, we should listen to Nietzche, who teaches in Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik that there is no Apollo (reason), without a Dionysus (passion).