Final answer:
Thomas Hobbes viewed the state of nature as a warlike scenario without government, necessitating a powerful ruler to maintain order, while Jean-Jacques Rousseau viewed it as peaceful and corrupted only by societal constructs, advocating for a government reflecting the general will.
Step-by-step explanation:
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau had differing views on the state of nature. Hobbes believed that in the state of nature, without a government, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" as individuals would be in a constant state of war with one another. He advocated for a social contract to establish a powerful ruler, or Leviathan, to enforce laws and maintain order. In contrast, Rousseau had a more positive outlook, arguing that humans in the state of nature were essentially good and lived freely and peacefully. However, he believed that it was the formation of society and property that corrupted humans and led to various social inequalities. Rousseau promoted the idea of a government that was based on the general will of the people, rather than a strong authoritarian figure.