Hume: Of the Idea of Necessary Connexion

I found this very interesting to read and accepting what Hume states to be true, I found, a massive contradiction in the terminology he uses to explain the intermittent steps between the theory which he posits.

Hume writes that "upon the whole, there appears not, throughout all nature, any one instance of connexion which is conceivable by us. All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never can observe any tie between them. They seem conjoined but never connected" (Hume, David. An Enquiry, 1)

Taking this to be true, I felt as if Hume was saying that though we have a definition of causation for the sake of being able to function in this world (as consistency and redundancy allows for order and stability), fundamentally, we have no idea of a cause, in the sense that it is not concrete. Cause is the product of sensations we have about things "repeating themselves." Yet, all we can observe is singular events that occur one after the next and we can infer nothing from them as to which causes the other or of without one, the other would not be as Hume writes it.

On the other hand, as I continued to take what Hume said to be true, I followed his argument all the way through and found a problem when he said that "Every idea is copied from some preceding impression or sentiment; and where we cannot find any impression, we may be certain there is no idea" (Hume, David. An Enquiry, 3). As aforementioned, we perceive consistency and redundancy, based on the functioning of whatever faculties/systems we possess which interpret sensory information, i.e., impressions and sentiment. A shorter way of saying this, Hume uses the word "copied" which is problematic when we re asses the idea of newness with respect to his theory of the conjoined behavior of objects and circumstances. For me, copied implies that there is something to be copied, which means that they copy is not the original, therefore not new.

I understood that he was trying to explain how people arrive at the idea of causation, but he later tries to justify the existence of copies as connected to sentiment and impressions, which to me suggests a fault in our sensory systems in realizing each circumstance as a new one. Which may ultimately mean that we need to train ourselves to realize it.