And you know one of the reasons 'why' Pascal wrote some of the things he did, right? To counter what he saw as a deficiency in Descartes' thinking. Let's just say that … they talked.
Furthermore, if we take Tarski into account in our assessment of the nature of propositions and their supposed logical inferences, whether positive, negative, and/or especially those which are self referential, then we run into a clash between linguistics and meta-linguistics. Of course, we could....ignore Tarski, but I'm not sure that would make us very good Analytic Philosophers in the long run. I mean, there is a difference in the nature between 1) a possible physical miscontextualized entity [like our space cowboy teapot] just floating around Jupiter, and 2) the entity of the Law of Non-Contradiction in our heads here on earth. These two things have different linguistic contexts.