Berkeley felt that all we really know about an object we learn from our perception of that object. He recognized that in the materialist's view the real object is independent of any perceiver's perception. The pen on my desk would exist, whether or not I was in the room to see it or have a sensory experience of it in some way. Berkeley rejected this idea. He realized that knowledge is limited to perception. In this realization, he postulated that everything we know we learned through some sort of sensory perception. He demonstrated that there was a veil of ignorance separating the materialist's real object and

to think that this tree will continue to be

This is an illegitimate appeal to save his philosophy. By saving his theory in this manner he "shoots himself in the foot." If God cannot be perceived, and if to be is to be perceived, then God cannot possibly exist. Although the existence of God can be inferred through the classical ontological argument, doing so scuttles his immaterial world. If one can have knowledge through inference, then one can infer the existence of a material world.

This limerick demonstrates the devastating problem with this mode of thought and also a possible solution. What, then, happens to an object when no one can perceive it anymore? If no one sees the tree and no one has a sensory experience of it, does it cease to exist? This idea suggests that objects pop in and out of reality when not being perceived by any human perce

Some common words found in the essay are:
Faithfully God, Berkeley Irish, Est Percipi, Sir I'm, god continuous perceiver, god continuous, immaterial world, real object, continuous perceiver, sensory experience, tree continue, object independent, material world,
Approximate Word count = 583
Approximate Pages = 2 (250 words per page double spaced)