Idealism, Realism and G. E. Moore

I read G. E. Moore’s Refutation of Idealism. I’m almost certain that his assertions are a refutation of Idealism as I understand it. But the text is dense and sometimes I got lost and couldn’t tell whether or not he had convinced himself. Idealism, as I see it distilled to its essence, is the phrase, which I had to learn, esse est percipi, or to be is to be perceived or experienced. Essentially, nothing exists that hasn’t been perceived. Thus Idealists, I think, believe in an ultimate Self, or perceiver, which is where a God or something metaphysical comes to play. Which is why an Idealist can meet someone who he’s never met because something greater has already perceived this new someone.

Now, I could be all wrong here, but this is my take on it. Now, I probably need to go back and read Moore’s refutation. While it made some sense as I read, I didn’t study or read it well enough because now I forget its essence. I think what he was partially saying was that there is an intractable connection between the perceived and the perceiver such that the perceived need be perceived in order to be. Yet things continue to be (and I’m sure his argument went to kind of prove this) after I’ve stopped perceiving it (e.g. I look skyward and perceive the color blue. I close my eyes and only perceive in my mind the memory of the color blue. When I open my eyes a moment later, the blue shall still be there even though I stopped perceiving it). Now, here is where I get wishy-washy in my thoughts and I need further study because I think I might have misunderstood some of Moore’s fundamental points.