Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes present contrasting views on human nature and the state of nature, reflecting their broader philosophical differences.

Rousseau:

1. Natural Goodness: Humans are inherently good but corrupted by society and institutions.
2. Social Contract: Legitimate political authority arises from a collective agreement, emphasizing communal harmony.
3. Emotion and Intuition: Values feelings and personal experience over cold rationality.
4. Critique of Civilization: Argues that progress and modernity alienate individuals from their true nature.

Hobbes:

1. State of Nature: Describes it as “nasty, brutish, and short,” driven by self-interest and competition.
2. Self-Interest: Humans are primarily motivated by survival instincts.
3. Social Contract: To escape chaos, individuals surrender freedoms to a sovereign authority for security and order.

Synthesis: Rousseau’s optimistic view of natural goodness and emphasis on emotion and communal harmony contrast sharply with Hobbes’ pessimistic portrayal of human nature as inherently self-interested and competitive. While Rousseau sees society as corrupting, Hobbes views it as a necessary restraint to prevent chaos. Both, however, agree on the concept of a social contract as a means to achieve order, albeit for different reasons and with different outcomes in mind.