I'm the sort of mathematician who works really well with elements. I really enjoy point-set topology, and category theory tends to drive me crazy. When I was given a bunch of exercises on subjects like limits, colimits, and adjoint functors, I was able to do them, although I am sure my proofs were far longer and more laborious than they should have been. However, I felt like most of the understanding I gained from these exercises was gone within a week. I have a copy of MacLane's "Categories for the Working Mathematician," but whenever I pick it up, I can never seem to get through more than two or three pages (except in the introduction on foundations).

A couple months ago, I was trying to use the statements found in Hartshorne about glueing schemes and morphisms and realized that these statements were inadequate for my purposes. Looking more closely, I realized that Hartshorne's hypotheses are "wrong," in roughly the same way that it is "wrong" to require, in the definition of a basis for a topology that it be closed under finite intersections. (This would, for instance, exclude the set of open balls from being a basis for $\mathbb{R}^n$.) Working through it a bit more, I realized that the "right" statement was most easily expressed by saying that a certain kind of diagram in the category of schemes has a colimit. At this point, the notion of "colimit" began to seem much more manageable: a colimit is a way of gluing objects (and morphisms).

However, I cannot think of any similar intuition for the notion of "limit." Even in the case of a fibre product, a limit can be anything from an intersection to a product, and I find it intimidating to try to think of these two very different things as a special cases of the same construction. I understand how to show that they are; it just does not make intuitive sense, somehow.

For another example, I think (and correct me if I am wrong) that the sheaf condition on a presheaf can be expressed as stating that the contravariant functor takes colimits to limits. It seems like a statement this simple should make everything clearer, but I find it much easier to understand the definition in terms of compatible local sections gluing together. I can (I think) prove that they are the same, but by the time I get to one end of the proof, I've lost track of the other end intuitively.

Thus, my question is this: Is there a nice, preferably geometric intuition for the notion of limit? If anyone can recommend a book on category theory that they think would appeal to someone like me, that would also be appreciated.

I'm the sort of mathematician who works really well with elements. I really enjoy point-set topology, and category theory tends to drive me crazy. When I was given a bunch of exercises on subjects like limits, colimits, and adjoint functors, I was able to do them, although I am sure my proofs were far longer and more laborious than they should have been. However, I felt like most of the understanding I gained from these exercises was gone within a week. I have a copy of MacLane's "Categories for the Working Mathematician," but whenever I pick it up, I can never seem to get through more than two or three pages (except in the introduction on foundations).

A couple months ago, I was trying to use the statements found in Hartshorne about glueing schemes and morphisms and realized that these statements were inadequate for my purposes. Looking more closely, I realized that Hartshorne's hypotheses are "wrong," in roughly the same way that it is "wrong" to require, in the definition of a basis for a topology that it be closed under finite intersections. (This would, for instance, exclude the set of open balls from being a basis for $\mathbb{R}^n$.) Working through it a bit more, I realized that the "right" statement was most easily expressed by saying that a certain kind of diagram in the category of schemes has a colimit. At this point, the notion of "colimit" began to seem much more manageable: a colimit is a way of gluing objects (and morphisms).

However, I cannot think of any similar intuition for the notion of "limit." Even in the case of a fibre product, a limit can be anything from an intersection to a product, and I find it intimidating to try to think of these two very different things as a special cases of the same construction. I understand how to show that they are; it just does not make intuitive sense, somehow.

For another example, I think (and correct me if I am wrong) that the sheaf condition on a presheaf can be expressed as stating that the contravariant functor takes colimits to limits. [This is not correct as stated. See Martin Brandenburg's answer below for an explanation of why not, as well as what the correct statement is.] It seems like a statement this simple should make everything clearer, but I find it much easier to understand the definition in terms of compatible local sections gluing together. I can (I think) prove that they are the same, but by the time I get to one end of the proof, I've lost track of the other end intuitively.

Thus, my question is this: Is there a nice, preferably geometric intuition for the notion of limit? If anyone can recommend a book on category theory that they think would appeal to someone like me, that would also be appreciated.