comforts society had offered him while Rousseau's has men without any desires past satiating his biological requirements. The only thing that is the equal are the people to each other in each scenario. Equality, Hobbes writes, is what causes these horrid conditions because everyone wants the same things and wants all of it. However if self interest is also one of our main desires we would avoid that which would bring conflict and when struggles arise the absence of the concept of dignity would give no physical need to "win" a fight. Hobbes' ignores the biologically instilled notion of retreat and that self interest does not always equal avarice. Rousseau's therefor is more persuasive under his own rules.

The fact that in this model everyone is equal does not therefor mean people are going to kill for everything. Just because there is an "equality of attaining of hope in attaining our means" if those means aren't too rare there would be no problem in attaining them. The fact that everyone would be equal would simply give us each a comfortable niche in resources, being happy to eat from the same tree so long as it was constant.

While neither claims to be anthropologically correct Rousseau contends that his state is "...your history as I have thought to read it, not in the books of your fellowmen who are liars, but in nature, who never lies." While the theory of evolution did not appear until the mid-19th century Rousseau seems to describe an Australopithecus-like creature with his limited 18th century viewpoint. A creature without the capacity for tools or fire in the cornucopian center of Africa would only fight over terri

Some common words found in the essay are:
Equality Hobbes, Eden Hobbes', Rousseau's Hobbes', Hobbes Rousseau's, Ben Carr, competition diffidence glory, diffidence glory, rousseau's nature, rousseau believes, catch kill, hobbes writes, removal civilization, competition diffidence, specific frame, pity self,
Approximate Word count = 1107
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)