How much can we really remove ourselves, and our personal lenses from our philosophies?
Is that why philosophers differ?
Or was that more of an ancient thing?
Do only some do this?
Do we even want to?
Or is it purely logical?

For example:
I sit.
I notice my beliefs seem to be formed in light of past experiences I did not seem to really have much control over, as I believe.
That influences my thought and belief process as far as belief formation goes.
Perhaps even my causal theories are influenced also.
Is this a bias? For example, am I being irresponsible and not taking responsibility for my actions, short circuiting my self motivation drive in the moment?
Do I need to remove it? Does saying it is not in my control make me less motivated to act how I wish I could? I think so.
How? Do I analyze it and then say I don't know? Or do I say screw logic? Or do I find a better analysis? Or other options?
Why or why not?
Is it different for different people? Give me some examples.
This is built into my brain - if we dissected it we'd have a better idea of how my motivation/actions and beliefs were actually related - but we can't.
This seems to happen all the time and seems really really neglected. Psychologists are aware of self bias, but are philosophers? How do we bridge the gap between logic snd experience in theories?

These seem to be tough questions.