The author discusses the philosophical and scientific value of Paul Ricoeur's contribution to the writing of history. In particular, he focuses on the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity and the role of intentionality in historicity and destiny. To do so, the analysis is organized around the Temps et récit in three volumes (1983-1985), in which Ricoeur opposes his proposition concerning the dialogue between philosophy and history to the self-satisfied triumphalism of the Annales School. The author reviews a variety of reactions to Ricoeur (among others: de Certeau, Chartier, Rancière, Duby) and compares his position to those of Anglophone historians and philosophers (among others: Dray, von Wright, Danto, White, Taylor). These discussions permit a systematic exploration of the thought of the philosopher-historian. This leads to the realization that, for Ricoeur, the historian's practice is in constant tension between an always incomplete objectivity and the subjectivity of the methodological gaze which must always depend on a part of itself. This tension, argues Ricoeur, regulates the "truth contract" which guides historical investigation and grounds its method in which the subjectivity of thought is engaged in the very construction of frameworks of intelligibility. It is therefore not surprising that Temps et récit is devoted to thinking through the articulation of time which must appear with the notion of time conceived as a condition of historical phenomena. It is precisely this which is the basis for Ricoeur's hermeneutic project, i.e., reopening the past, revisiting its potentialities in light of the intentionality of the analyst. This project could only lead Ricoeur to reflect upon events and their meanings. In this regard, the author emphasizes the importance of philosophy's contribution at a time when the globalization of information has led to a conjuncture in which the social totality is experiencing a dilation of history. This has produced a presentification leading to a new experience of historicity, in which historical facticity is redefined as an approach involving a multiplicity of possibilities and the historian's reading of events, no longer reducible to the event in question, is viewed rather as a trace situated in a chain of events and therefore within a process. On this basis it is possible to understand the importance of Ricoeur's contribution to the history of the present, as well as the impact of his work on the history-memory relationship, which is itself presented as an historical object. This reversal has an historical value because it allows for a better understanding of the indeterminate character of the possibilities open to actors, an indeterminacy in which the subjective intentionality of actors assumes an importance in the determination of the regime of historicity, inasmuch as the latter is traversed by the tension between the space of experience and the horizon of expectation. As such, the regime of historicity is always open towards the future and cannot be a mere projection of a social project closed upon itself, the logic of action always keeps open the field of possibility.