>The use of logic as a tool for rigorously validating philosophical arguments, which was the original basis for the connection between philosophy and logic, is still a pipe dream.

That's not strictly true. The Arab and Scholastic philosophers constructed a philosophical world-view, largely based on Aristotelian logic, which internally consistent fairly comprehensive. What resulted in its downfall, was not the failure of logic, but the desire for absolute truth. All forms of logic, whether mathematical or syllogistic, require argument from premises, which means that ultimately one must start with first premises that cannot be proved and must merely be agreed upon (making truth a matter of consensus.) Descartes tried to rectify this situation by assuming away all assumptions and proving first premises in a vacuum. He didn't get far (made too many logical fallacies) but he started a fad that overtook the philosophical realm and continues to this day.

My point being, that the problem wasn't the language (despite what the deconstructuralists might say,) which, if common and well defined presents no barrier, but changing ends in philosophical discourse.