Comparing Locke And Rousseau's State Of Nature

When comparing Rousseau to Hobbes and Locke, the differences in their ideologies are prominent, however, they are still similar in some ways. In the State of Nature according to Rousseau, “man’s natural sentiment was that of his existence, his first care that of his preservation” (Discourse, Part II). This man is known as the “nascent man” and is often contrasted with the “savage man”, who exists in civilized society. In this State of Nature, man’s primary concern is to look after himself, similar to Hobbes’ and Locke’s, However, this is essentially the extent of the similarities between the three. Hobbes and Locke believe that man is naturally a societal animal who thrives with the presence of politics, whereas Rousseau believes exactly the opposite: that man is naturally a solitary animal, and that society corrupts us.
These new skills and techniques allowed for the development of housing, which led humans to become domicile. This then permitted the formation of the family unit, leading to the first concepts of private property. This leads into another important difference in the philosophers: that unlike Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau believes that there is a natural inequality between people in the State of Nature. Some people are simply better suited for their environment and are able to accumulate resources and possessions more proficiently. This led to a respect between people for private property in the State of Nature (Discourse). However, this beginning of the concept of private property also led to the beginning of industry, and the beginning of industry led to materialism, which Rousseau believes is the process of burdening ourselves by seeking things that we do not