Inauthenticity is to triangulate by respect or reflection of the social other, while authenticity is triangulating by respect to an absolute other which might be God or the Law if you are a believer or death or history or your species if you are not. The point is that in either case you are triangulating, that is you are performing in a frame in which you appear as object of another gaze, and the situation is played that way. Whenever you philosophise, using linguistically deployed concepts to set down markers for realities to be tested or questioned, you are engaged in the same sort of process. If you are inauthentic then a challenge to your entitlement to the use of those material concepts will cause you to step back and take on the terms implicit in the criticism you imagine to be leveled against you, while if you are authentic then your entitlement is not so much rigid as free from anxiety, from the need to look over your own shoulder, but only because you are identified with the constituting perspective. But actually you are not entitled to use those concepts at all. All concepts are flawed, you already know that they can't be traded for Platonic values, but what is hidden is that the flaw passes through the very heart of what you refer to, in that same flawed way, as your subjectivity. The shame at being out of your depth is no part of this at all, since such shame or ridiculousness would be triangular. Try to imagine the same existential tremor but without any possibility of being reflected in a gaze or other perspective, doubt which peels away the whole mask.