Explore the vast range of titles available.

A poem is presented.

Despite their many similarities, one apparent difference between the ethics of K.E. Løgstrup and Emmanuel Levinas concerns trust: Levinas does not analyse trust as a morally significant phenomenon, whereas Løgstrup makes it a central component of his moral phenomenology. This paper argues that an analysis of Løgstrupian trust nonetheless reveals at least three important commonalities between Levinas and Løgstrup’s moral projects: an understanding of war and ethics as metaphysical opposites; an emphasis on openness to the other as something that transcends the prudential order of norms and laws; and a view of the ethical as that which breaks into and disrupts the order of human instrumental calculation.

Recent scholarship has repeatedly challenged the notion that Greek warfare was ever characterized by rule-bound battles in open ground. This article builds on those challenges by asking to what extent a morality that favored pitched battle affected military thinking at all. Some appeals to such values survive from the Classical period, but they are ambiguous, ineffectual, and often contested. There is much more consistent evidence for the opposite view: that the risks of open battle were too great, that engaging in them was therefore irresponsible, and that other kinds of military operation were preferred.