Heidegger has a similar, and at the same time differ- ent, understanding of how life should be lived. For him, the distinction is not between normal and neurotic, but authentic and inauthentic. And just as Freud’s normality requires an appropriation of one’s previously given, inner reality, so Heidegger’s authenticity requires an un- derstanding of what is essential about oneself. But there are two significant differences. First, for Heidegger, be- cause understanding, as a fundamental characteristic of being-in-the-world, is shown in our acts and practices (not in having true inner beliefs), authenticity is shown in styles of behavior or comportment in the world. The second difference is that authenticity is not acknowledg- ment of sexual or aggressive wishes or drives but an ap- preciation of dasein or being-in-the-world itself, since that is what human nature fundamentally is. In other words, authenticity requires understanding of being-in- the-world: its absorption in things that are factical (enti- ties constituted by our culture, which are nevertheless perceived as necessary and universal). Authenticity is shown by acting with commitment, absorption, and af- fectedness, despite full awareness of the contingency of the world and our interpretations. Everything, as Wittgenstein says, might have been different. This au- thenticity resembles love. When an individual loves, it is only a particular individual person who can be the object of her love. Without the loved person the lover feels lost and empty. And yet, she also realizes that no one person could be that special: everyone who loves has her own loved one, and to every lover that loved one is unique. To continue to love, aware of this paradox, is an example of authenticity.