Two cat graphics

April 27, 2015 • 3:45 pm

I’m a tired boy, what with a talk to write, other work to do, and a passel of hungry squirrels that never get full. And so, to end the day, I’ll simply present you with two nice cat graphics. I’m sure you’ll want to send at least one to your friends.

 

Motivational

 

11173365_681544628624164_6184069738399753123_n

40 thoughts on “Two cat graphics

    1. I’m getting increasing irritated with “progress of human evolution” diagrams which are straight out of the 1950s. Surely someone could do a new one and get it a bit more right.

      1. Indeed.

        hmm … What would a more accurate version look like? Maybe we (collectively) should make one.

    1. Ha ha! I didn’t even notice the deformed butt. I think it’s supposed to be his hand. The thing the guy is presenting looks like an old-timey record player or a jewelry box. If so, the cat will just scratch him afterwards.

      1. Yeah, I guess it must be the guy’s hand;-) But I think there’s an image of a fish on the record-player thingie??

          1. Can’t be — I thought they were all into full water immersion, no? This is a Roomba, not a Scooby (or whatever they call their mopping robot).

            b&

              1. Well, how else am I supposed to know if it’s heretic scum and worthy of death?

                …though I suppose I could just play it safe push it off the bridge either way. Be nice if there were some way to be sure, though….

                b&

              2. Poor roomba; don’t push it off a bridge. It could be the start of a robot uprising.

  1. One of my old standard replies to vegetarians : My cat is unapologetic about being a carnivore and as am I

  2. Well I hate to be a humourless so-and-so, but no cat is an atheist. Atheism is a philosophical position, and philosophising is not an ability that even the most deluded cat-lover can attribute to their kitty.

    1. Indeed. Cats are too intelligent to bother with philosophy. They eschew such pseudoscientific nonsense and go straight for the empiricism.

      …which, incidentally, is why atheism also has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy. Theism does, of course, but not atheism.

      Got any credible evidence of a phenomenon you’d like to attribute to a god? If not, can you offer a coherent definition of how one would identify an hypothetical entity as a god and distinguish it from a not-god?

      …no…?

      Well, then, there’s your scientific conclusion of atheism. Anything further is soundly the realm of philosophy and of no relevance whatsoever to the real world.

      b&

      1. Philosophy isn’t pseudoscience because it doesn’t pretend to be science (in the modern sense of ‘science’).

        But the question of God’s existence is a philosophical one, and can only hope to be answered by philosophical means.

        Sorry you’re so down on philosophy, but there are many issues pertaining to the real world that can only be addressed through philosophical inquiry. I.e. matters ethical, political, metaphysical, and epistemological.

        1. Well, it comes down to a very simple question — and one of Richard Dawkins’s favorites: “How do you know that?”

          Philosophy as a discipline has no valid answer to that question. When it even bothers to attempt to answer it, its answers range all over the map.

          Science is about little more than answering that question, and the answer is always some variation on the them of, “because the answer is consistent with this list of carefully-made observations.”

          By what ruler do you measure success? That is what your answers will most closely align to. By measuring itself against observable reality, science ensures that its answers best approximate observable reality.

          Measure your answers against observable reality and you’re doing science.

          Measure your answers against anything else and all you reap is ignoance.

          It’s really that simple….

          b&

          1. The question of how scientific knowledge is possible is itself a philosophical question. You cannot explain or justify the scientific process through empirical methods. (Although given the notorious problem of induction, it may not be possible to justify the scientific method at all.)

            1. I’m sorry, but it’s the height of arrogance for philosophers to insist that scientists must go begging to them for justification. You want justification? Try five sigmas. That’s what justification looks like — not some gasbag whinging about teenaged Platonic existential angst.

              And this is especially galling considering that the philosophical grounds for such insistence are obviously logically invalid, what with philosophers priding themselves on their mad logics skillz and all.

              Every time a philosopher wants to claim that science validating itself is circular and therefore invalid, I want to introduce said philosopher to recursion…by…erm…suggesting that the philosopher’s own recto-cranial inversion is a not-bad first approximation of the concept….

              b&

  3. Is that first image a t-shirt? If not, it needs to be, even if I no longer have a cat, my d*gs see me as a useful fool, and my turtles as too big to eat.

  4. Thank you for these; they’re wonderful! The first one puts my in mind of a poem — parts of a poem by Ford Madox Ford (1873–1939).[1] The full work, “A House”,[2] takes as its subject a stereotypical house (“[t]he drawing of a child”), & gives voice to all within & without it — The Cat of the House, The Dog of the House, The Clock in the Hall, The Unborn Son, The Maid, The Tree, The House itself, etc., etc.

    The ‘poem’ consists of a selection of The Cat’s lines;[3] here it is, for those who might be interested — which could be no one (though poems about cats should pass muster, methinks):

    *The Cat of the House*

    I am the Cat. And you lie!
    I am the Atheist!
    All laws
    I coldly despise.
    I have yellow eyes;
    I am the Cat on the Mat the child draws
    When it first has a pencil to use.

    I muse
    Over the hearth with my ‘minishing eyes;
    Until after
    The last coal dies.
    Every tunnel of the mouse,
    Every channel of the cricket,
    I have smelt.
    I have felt
    The secret shifting of the mouldered rafter,
    And heard
    Every bird in the thicket.
    I see
    You,
    Nightingale up in your tree.

    Enough of your stuff of dust and of mud!
    I, born of a race of strange things,
    Of deserts, great temples, great kings,
    In the hot sands where the nightingale never sings!

    ____________

    [1] http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/ford-madox-ford
    [2] http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/browse/17/6#!/20572986
    [3] Excerpts from: “A House”. *Poetry* 17.6 (1921): 291–310. Repr. in: *Ford Maddox Ford: Selected Poems*. Ed. & intro. Max Saunders. 1997. New York: Routledge, 2003. 126–139.

  5. I like the first graphic, though its author – is this Prof. Coyne? – shouldn’t have drawn and publicly broadcasted my cat without my permission!
    (We have an old TV set broad enough for her to position herself on top and to suspend her tail exactly as drawn – in front of the screen, so that to obstruct our TV watching.)

Leave a Reply