According to Hume, the philosopher’s “idea of [causal] power or necessary [causal] connection” cannot be perceived when we look at one thing causing another (like one moving billiard ball causing...

According to Hume, the philosopher’s “idea of [causal] power or necessary [causal] connection” cannot be perceived when we look at one thing causing another (like one moving billiard ball causing another one to move). Since “we can have no idea of anything which never appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment,” he concludes that “we have no idea of [causal] connection or [causal] power at all.” Try to put Hume’s argument into its logical form. Does Hume contradict himself in this argument? Hume says his conclusion is really that “these words are absolutely without any meaning.” Can this fix the contradiction he might have made in his argument?