Final answer:
Thomas Hobbes' conceptualization of a strong authoritarian government to prevent chaotic natural states distinguishes him from Aristotle's view of politics as naturally integral to human society and Machiavelli's focus on power dynamics. All three acknowledged human self-interest, while Locke offered a contrast with his emphasis on natural rights and limited government.
Step-by-step explanation:
Thomas Hobbes' approach to studying politics and the origins of government notably differed from other political thinkers like Aristotle and Machiavelli. Hobbes envisioned a social contract and the state of nature very differently than Aristotle, who did not conceptualize a social contract but instead saw politics as an organic aspect of human nature and society. Machiavelli was more pragmatic and focused on the acquisition and maintenance of power, rather than an overarching social contract theory. Unlike Aristotle's belief in virtuous governments or Machiavelli's power-centered viewpoint, Hobbes believed in a strong, almost authoritarian government that imposed order to prevent the chaos of the natural state.
All three thinkers made assumptions about the nature of human beings. While Aristotle believed humans are naturally political animals that thrive in a communal setting, both Hobbes and Machiavelli acknowledged the self-interest and potentially destructive nature of humans. Locke, following Hobbes, saw the necessity of a social contract but with a fundamental belief in natural rights, which limited the power of government.
They shared an interest in the role of government and provided hugely influential ideas, with differing assumptions about human nature and the best way to govern. Although divergent in their views, their contributions immensely shaped political thought and the modern understanding of governance.