I hate this particular mix of prose and formalism. Too complicated to be pop-sci, too informal to be, well, formal. I got to this part:

> We know that two orders are isomorphic if there are two functors, such that going from one to the other and back again leads you to the same object.

And I have no clue what is a functor, nor order. "Functor" wasn't defined, and "order" is defined as "thin category", which in turn remains undefined.

Seems to me like in order to understand this text you already need to understand category theory. If that's the case, then why would you be reading it?