This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
This article reads as a plug for Lakoff and Johnson's book. Reference to L&J is inessential and should be at most passing. Making it sound like Mac Lane's views are some kind of ill-formed "anticipation" of L&J leaves an entirely misleading impression of the relative importance of Mac Lane's work vs L&J's in the philosophy of mathematics. A much better approach to this article would emphasize the connection between Mac Lane and Hilbert, perhaps drawing from Colin McLarty's excellent writing on that topic, and on the contrast between Mac Lane's image of mathematics and platonistic set theory. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)