 Kant may have other reasons for thinking that our representation of space is not a concept. If we recall Kant’s view that concepts are general, mediate representations, and his view of how these facts are reflected in the conceptual trees discussed above, then there is indeed at least a prima facie puzzle as to how we could have a concept, in Kant’s sense, of space. Consider a contrast class. Even if we think that &lt;God&gt; represents only a single entity, that fact does not undermine Kant’s view that this concept is a general, mediate representation (cf. Thompson 1972, 318–19, 328–29). For we represent God, in Kant’s view, by representing it through other concepts: for instance, God is a necessary substance (A678/B706), so &lt;God&gt; is a mediate representation. This is distinct from the way in which an intuition represents something. And the concept &lt;substance&gt;—which is one of the categories (A80/B106)—is a representation that we can grasp independently of grasping &lt;God&gt;. Hence &lt;substance&gt; is a constituent of &lt;God&gt;, but not vice versa. Moreover, &lt;God&gt; is a general representation because it places God within another class, namely the class of substances. It will then be a matter of some dispute whether the generality criterion and the mediacy criterion amount to the same thing (cf. Parsons 1992, 63–6). But the key point here is this: the fact that &lt;God&gt; picks out a single individual—and perhaps even, can pick out only a single individual—does not entail that this concept is not general or mediate. This suggests, in turn, that Kant’s point in the Metaphysical Exposition cannot be that our representation of space picks out a single individual and therefore cannot be a concept. Rather, he presumably thinks that we do not represent space either: (1) by representing its constituents, namely places; or (2) by representing it through other concepts. We have discussed (1) above; what about (2)?