If you cannot understand my arguments unless they are translated into symbolic logic, then you will not ever understand my arguments, because I have no intention of translating them into symbolic logic. If philosophy is, in your mind, reduced so that it is only worthwhile or even coherent if in a certain format, then we have come, in my opinion, to a very a sad state of affairs. It means that method and systematization have replaced the actual persuit of Truth and, paraphrasing Nietzsche, methods are required by those that lack character. In other words, formality is required by those who do not bridle at formality: i.e. those who have something to express which does not fit within the formal structure, or in any case does not require that formal structure. Then again, maybe my arguments are utter nonsense and cannot be understood at all. If that's the case, then repeating them for the nth time won't solve our confusion, so I suppose it's best to stop here and cut our losses.
Regarding the part of your comments that I underlined above, I'll ignore your suggestion but I have one of my own for you, which you no doubt will ignore, but I feel inclined to make nonetheless. Forget all symbols which are not contained in the alphabet, learned to express yourself purely through the most refined medium, burn your symbolic logic books, read the Will to Power, read it again, and then write down what you've learned.
The underlying questions are:
What are the premises of Logic itself?
Is Logic applicable to any or all other branches of Philosophy, i.e., Epistemology ("knowedge of the 'external world'")?
Can we speak of an Epistemology of Logic? [See The logic of epistemology and the epistemology of logic: selected essays
, by Jaakko Hintikka and Merrill b. Hintikka (Springer, 1989).]
How about a Metaphysics of Logic? [See "Some Suggestions Concerning Metaphysics of Logic," by Clarene Irving Lewis in his Selected Papers
(Stanford University Press, 1970), Chapter 8]
Or a Metaphysics of Epistemology? [See The Metaphysics of Epistemology
, by Ernest Sosa and Enrique Villanueva (Blackwell Pub., 2007)]
And what about Fuzzy or Deviant Logic? [See Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic: Beyond the Formalism
, by Susan Haack (University of Chicago Press, 1996)]
But these questions belong under Metaphilosophy.