Some feel skeptical about Plato's view of innate sources of knowledge and also the invisible and unintelligible realms where the forms are said to be experienced. Beginning at the premises, we require the starting points to be self evidently true and the rest of the syllogism falls into place accordingly. These mechanisms and devices didn't call to answer the question of a will, but rather whether there is an essence within things that we are detecting. These are two different investigations entirely. To only say that partial examples of will are experienced is only a statement made to cause a lot of obfuscation. There is either freedom or control. In the natural world, animals experience dictation through instinct. Though some may say animals are free in the sense that they do not have to pay taxes, they are still controlled by natural law. There seems to be no example of something that is self-reliant and free. Through every relationship, it is a matter of giving and taking. When an example is provided it might seem self-evident but at this point it appears that we only see examples of behavior that is a reaction to something and behavior that is a means to something. There is no action that is necessarily free and under the circumstance that an action is made for no reason we typically consider this negative. Pointless and without any aim or direction. Pointlessness seems like another unapproachable form. Nothing can be completely unattached to outside influence and if any behavior is made to have some effect it cannot be pointless. This argument requires a more micro perspective of will. For example, if one is reacting to a bee sting. Reactions to sensations that do not have any overall, grand objective other than to control what is being inflicted. To shoo a gnat buzzing in one's direct line of vision, there are always minor reasons as to why one acts. Like the human is a mass of mere potential energy that reacts to the pushing and pulling of reality. In this sense, we might want to say that everything can be considered pointless if the means aren't in particular individual's tastes.
Tastes are an example of a lack of will, and the adoption of one's personality is based upon elements from the external world. Tastes may even be considered the initial force upon our being as we are drawn to things and repulsed by others. However, our own tastes are another impossible form to experience and we can never fully comprehend another's personality by their tastes although it can appear to get very close. Again, the minor difference is the choice between red and yellow and an explanation as to why. Still, there is no choice, only the opportunity to state a fact in a particular situation.
An increase in exposure can have two different conclusions. Either one needs more exposure to find more elements of themselves, or the exposure is arbitrary and the person always acts in accordance with the person they are regardless of what influences are present. There are arguments based on the premise that being is characterized by constant change. In order to adjust any kind of direction, something needs something else that is approachable. This is another example of a relationship. Whatever is being approached is an end to the means of whatever force pulls at the will. It seeks to find what it appears to have a familiarity with. Through a process of recognition of whatever the self exemplifies. This has some implication that the will is drawn to something it believes it knows. Reverting back to a platonic system of forms, the self is something that is only attained because it knows itself. It also follows that the will is a device that is moved by approaching a familiarity.
