How did Hobbes differ from Aristotle on whether humans are naturally suited for political life?

Thomas Hobbes and Aristotle held fundamentally opposing views regarding whether humans are naturally suited for political life.

Aristotle’s Perspective
Aristotle famously defined man as a "political animal," arguing that the city-state is the natural form of human association. He believed that humans possess unique gifts of speech and moral judgment, and that they can only fully realize their potential and achieve the "good life" by participating in the political community under the rule of law.1

Hobbes’s Perspective
In contrast, Thomas Hobbes explicitly rejected this Aristotelian thesis. In his work De Cive, he argued that humans are by nature unsuited for political life. Hobbes posited that individuals are driven by self-interest, competition, and a desire for glory, which leads to a "state of nature" characterized by a "war of all against all." For Hobbes, political order is not a natural expression of human development but an artificial construct—a social contract—created solely to escape the chaos and violence of our natural condition.23