How did Rousseau’s view of the state of nature differ from Hobbes’s view?

While both Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau viewed the state of nature as a condition of solitary individuals, they held fundamentally opposing views on the nature of humanity in that state.12

For Hobbes, the state of nature was a constant "war of every man against every man," characterized by competition and fear. He famously described life in this condition as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," driven by a desperate need for self-preservation in the absence of a sovereign Leviathan.13

Rousseau vehemently rejected this pessimistic assessment. He argued that the state of nature was a morally neutral, peaceful, and primitive condition where humans were naturally "healthy, happy, good, and free". In his view, humans were not inherently antagonistic; rather, vices such as pride, envy, and inequality only emerged once individuals began to form societies and introduce the concept of private property. While Hobbes saw the state of nature as a threat to be escaped through absolute authority, Rousseau blamed society and civilization for corrupting the original innocence of humanity.123