The "Truth" of No Absolutes Made Barely Consistent?

[4Horsemen]

To explain…

You wrote:
If certainty is impossible, you can’t ever be certain about anything or any statement.

The first ‘certainty’ is an abstract, objective use. The second ‘you can’t be certain’ is a subjective use. That seems like an equivocation on the key concept which cannot be justified on the basis of the original statement.

Ergo my reply:
The statement is not: “If certainty is impossible, then you can be certain of something, namely, that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible” - which is how you seem to have construed it, insofar as you have put the emphasis on the subjective state of a ‘you’. Sorry if that’s convoluted, but I hope it makes sense.

When you wrote above, “since the consequent is false…”, that is an irrelevant statement for evaluating the truth of the whole conditional. To evaluate the truth of the conditional you would have to say, “if the consequent is false, then the antecedent is false,” and this would imply that the conditional is true. “Since” implies a categorical statement, whereas the original statement is obviously a conditional.

Original proposition: "If certainty is impossible it is certain that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible."

I believe I am getting what you are saying, and that is what I actually meant to start out with, mentally, but didn’t express it with the correct terminology. Your last paragraph sold me on it. Of course, “if” the consequent is false, then the antecedent is false, as in the original statement making the conditional (“if, then”) true. I used the terms “since” and “you” incorrectly. You must teach this stuff! Anyhow, thanks for the lesson.