Yeah, what I meant was Godel was poking at the edges of the logical systems, eventually logically proving that we can't know everything about them, but even aft

Yeah, what I meant was Godel was poking at the edges of the logical systems, eventually logically proving that we can't know everything about them, but even afterwards he was still into (simplifying it a bit here) logic-for-it's-own-sake, even though he was exploring how logic is inherently incomplete (not in the Godel sense of incomplete, I just couldn't think of a better word....) Whereas W II does get more specific and deeply explores the real-world implications, partly as a rejection of W I's tendency to speak in abstract, high-level ideas. But W II doesn't dwell on the implications of the inherent fallacy of logic as Godel does, just uses that as a rung in the ladder to somewhere else. And I didn't take it as you making a direct like to Godel, but it's interesting to think about because they were all part of the same zeitgeist which is still strongly echoing in our culture. They didn't see eye-to-eye in their life despite some common threads, and it got me thinking about WHY that was.