HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE, RECONSTRUCTION, AND THE LIMITS OF OBJECTIVITY

Objectivity has long been regarded as a foundational principle of historiography, shaping how historians approach the study and reconstruction of the past. From the classical era of Herodotus to modern historical scholarship, the discipline has been guided by the belief that a clear distinction exists between the knower and the known, and that the past constitutes an objective reality that can be meaningfully recovered. This study examines the philosophical assumptions underlying the ideal of objectivity, including the commitment to the reality of the past, the correspondence theory of truth, and the separation between fact and value, history and fiction. It further explores the notion that historical facts are prior to and independent of interpretation, and that interpretations gain validity only insofar as they accurately account for available evidence. By critically assessing these assumptions, the paper highlights both the enduring significance of objectivity in historical inquiry and the tensions that arise in its practical application. The study argues that while absolute objectivity may remain elusive, a disciplined and evidence-based approach continues to provide a credible framework for historical reconstruction and scholarly debate.