Abstract Kant’s account of the sublime makes frequent appeals to infinity, appeals which have been extensively criticised by commentators such as Budd and Crowther. This paper examines the costs and benefits of reconstructing the account in finitist terms. On the one hand, drawing ona detailed comparison of the first and third Critiques, I argue that the underlying logic of Kant’s position is essentially finitist. I defend the approach against longstanding objections, as well as addressing recent infinitist work by Moore and Smith. On the other hand, however, I argue that finitism faces distinctive problems of its own: whilst the resultant theory is a coherent and interesting one, it is unclear in what sense it remains an analysis of the sublime. I illustrate the worry by juxtaposing the finitist reading with analytical cubism.

中文翻译：

---

可以对康德崇高有一个有限的解释吗？

摘要康德对崇高的描述经常引起人们对无限性的诉求，而这种呼吁受到了Budd和Crowther等评论家的广泛批评。本文以有限主义的方式研究了重建账户的成本和收益。一方面，我通过对第一批和第三批批评的详细比较，认为康德立场的内在逻辑本质上是有限主义者。我捍卫这种方法，避免长期以来的反对意见，并解决摩尔和史密斯最近所做的无穷无尽的工作。但是，另一方面，我认为有限主义本身也面临着独特的问题：尽管由此产生的理论是一个连贯而有趣的理论，但尚不清楚它在何种意义上仍然是对崇高主义的分析。我通过将分析主义的立体派与并列主义来说明这种担忧。