Literature as well as already had been said for the philosopher Aristotle is one of the artistic forms of transcendental and real representation of something. In such a way, literary making demands so to speak, an effort not only of significao and construction of words, but something stops beyond the borders of the proper language. The philosopher Aristotle, perceived specifically in the poetry, a literary sort that more is come close to the philosophy perceiving it in artistic way. Why Aristotle in sc. IV B.C.
argued something that currently seems to be so banal to the eyes of some? If for the state that infused in the head of the subjects who the art does not possess practical and immediate utility, a philosophical-poetical thought perceived by Aristotle never will be able to have the space that must, therefore substituted it to the state for science. The thinker perceived that he has a basic difference, but primordial between the historian and the poet. For Aristotle the poet is that one that he differently perceives of the accountant of histories that simply one copies what it happened, not-happened, but what it could happen in inevitable way. Therefore, the historian for the philosopher tells particular facts, while the poetry chains the imagined events as its inevitable causes, that is, necessary. In this direction, the poetry tends for the universal knowledge that is one of the objectives maximum of the philosophy. A literary text, therefore, cause one ' ' desvelamento' ' of the reality human being and it makes, it of artistic form, making with that the reader creates roots, thus being able, to reflect the transcendental and the Real from some perspectives. In this way we can infer that literature is the expression of the man (in the direction of reason, order, explicitado Real previously in the text) and of the human being (in the irrational direction, histrico, with all the vital feelings and impulses).