Berkeley is often sited as the "ideal" of idealism. Most of the academic arguments attack his various points, but his finer points seems to escape the academic community. Kant gives some effort in being fair to Berkeley's idealism in his arguments.
It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects, have an existence, natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world, yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense? and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations? and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these, or any combination of them, should exist unperceived? - Bishop Berkeley
Let us go with the example of a chair:
1) If I remember a chair being somewhere it is a perception through memory.
2) If I imagine a chair somewhere then it is a chair somewhere in imagination (or hallucination, which he does make reference to later).
3) If I see a chair, then I am perceiving a chair.
Even without arguing the "reality beyond the perception", the only reality "I" am aware of is the perception.
How is this not acceptable in the current academia? The "meat" of his arguments, if taken seriously, are soundly based. I don't know of anyone that takes idealism seriously (if there are any modern writing for or against if please give reference), why?