I'm currently looking for sources on category theory that take a more intuitive approach and delves deeper into the nature of the idealogy leading to the theory.
I read some elementary books on the subject such as "category theory in context" but in my point of view, category theory seems like a more fundamental theory than most of modern mathematical fields.
Although I didn't feel like I got to the nature of the theory yet. So I was looking forward to find some books that take a more natural approach on the subject. (I apologise in advance if my description was not straightforward, I'm looking to find books taking an approach similar to ones Hatcher takes for algebraic topology, Bourbaki takes for absolutely anything and specifically algebra and group theory, Shahshahani takes for manifold theory and so on and so forth)
Any help or hint or suggestion helps. Also anything related to category theory (or universal algebra) would help a lot. Thanks.

  • $\begingroup$ Categories for the Working Mathematician is a very good book. I don't guarantee that it meets your needs though. $\endgroup$
    – drhab
    Commented Jan 26 at 10:36
  • $\begingroup$ "I didn't feel like I got to the nature of the theory yet." That pretty much describes my feeling of the topic after over a decade of looking into it. Other than the absolute basics of definition and whatnot. $\endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Commented Jan 26 at 16:27
  • $\begingroup$ I'm unfortunately deeply confused about how Hatcher and Bourbaki could possibly be considered as taking a similar approach. I would've said they were polar opposites. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 26 at 18:22
  • $\begingroup$ @KevinArlin I'm not implying that they took a "similar" approach but they both tend to describe the underlying theory in a seemingly natural manner, which happens to be what I'm looking for $\endgroup$
    – Aryan
    Commented Jan 26 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Aryan I believe that’s your perception, I just have no idea how to understand what you mean by “natural” that would apply to both of those books. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 26 at 22:51


You must log in to answer this question.