The transformation of historical knowledge within the positivist and idealist traditions: Two case studies from republican era historiography

This dissertation examines the positivist and idealist approaches to historical knowledge by comparing their philosophical foundations and analysing how these two intellectual traditions are reflected in the historiography of the Republican era in Turkey. The primary aim is to assess the conceptual and methodological impacts of idealism and positivism on the production of historical knowledge and to reveal how these influences have manifested both theoretically and practically in Turkish historical writing. The study first examines the fundamental principles of the positivist understanding of history through the perspectives of Auguste Comte, J. S. Mill, and Leopold von Ranke; it then explores the philosophy of history developed within British Idealism, focusing on thinkers such as R. G. Collingwood, F. H. Bradley, and Michael Oakeshott. In light of this theoretical framework, the historical writings of Osman Turan and Mehmed Fuad Köprülü are selected for close examination through content analysis. Their approaches to historical knowledge are compared using criteria such as objectivity, meaning, use of sources, and the role of the historian. The findings indicate that the idealist tradition prioritizes interpretation and context, while the positivist method emphasizes causality and source-based explanation. Ultimately, this dissertation demonstrates that these two philosophical orientations in Turkish historiography do not merely oppose each other, but sometimes complement one another, thereby revealing the multi-layered character of historical knowledge.