Education
Graphic Design Communication
UAL: Chelsea College of Arts
Art & Design: Graphic Design
University for the Creative Arts
Experience
Designer & Brand Consultant: Freelance
(Apr 20’ — Present)
As a multifaceted Freelance Graphic Designer, Art Director, Brand Strategist, and Consultant for the past four years, I merge creative expertise and strategic insight. I’ve shaped brand identities, led design initiatives and provided impactful user experiences. Adaptable and innovative, I collaborate across industries, delivering memorable visuals and strategic solutions that resonate with clients, leaving a lasting brand impression and increase in KPIs.
Founder, Creative Director & Teacher: C2XP
(Jun 24’ — Present)
The industry maintains many barriers of entry and so I founded C2XP a nonprofit providing access to creative resources. Alongside running the organisation, I provide free teaching material, run workshops and produce informative content online. The website and YouTube channel will be live soon.
Contact
Instagram @jaambolov
YouTube @jaambolov
hej@jaymacgregor.net
https://c2xp.org/
- Philosophy Book
Publication & Writings - Personal Project - Philosophy
- Published: 2025
Adressing public access - Designed and written by myself
Truth be told I am a deeply fearful individual. Whether its doors shutting loudly, the anticipation of conflict or an endless undying void of purpose. I am fearful of so much and through continuous almost excessive self-reflection and evaluation I have developed an innate interest and passion for philosophy. This has led me to the likes of Søren Kierkegaard, a fellow Dane, and Alain de Botton amongst many others. My love for philosophy stems from an excessive wealth of life experiences which have arguably entirely shaped who I am today and so I ask myself, are the philosophical concepts of faith, morality and purpose merely coping mechanisms? And how do we go about addressing the accessibility of philosophy as a catalyst for change?
My struggles with mental health have existed since self-awareness for years too many, these struggles however have helped me better understand myself but have subsequently given rise to an endless continuous stream of thoughts, considerations and questions for the unknown. Perhaps as a means of making sense of it all. My thirst for knowledge is an insatiable hunger which propels me through life, without it I would cease to be. It is my everything, my motivation, my strength, my weakness, my shame. Curiosity has brought me many triumphs but also, many losses. As a deeply considered and reflective person the question of where I reside amidst this perceived reality is inevitable. It’s no wonder I ask myself why and how. Surely, we all do. Nonetheless it’s a consideration which can drive even the dullest of minds insane when given enough devotion. And so how can I or any individual for that matter ask why and how without also asking what. What is this life of ours, this life of mine, what is the purpose of it all, what am I to do. Having spent some time considering these thoughts I associate myself with the existentialists. As I am right now, I believe there to be no real meaning to it all, no one underlining impenetrable string of characters which so eloquently define our existence in this vast and potentially eternal universe. I do, however, share an ounce of optimism. Unlike the nihilist who wishes to see the world burn, I do believe purpose exists, I do. But unlike those devoted to an almighty deity I believe purpose is derived from within and should be kept within. People perceptually find their purpose which in reality, or at least mine, is in fact a construction, a creation, we create our purpose. From all the pain and hurt, the hardship, suffering and joy, we experience tremendous levels of cosmic energy. Sure, we have genetic predispositions, but we are a concoction of all sorts, an amalgamation of experience.
I do truly believe that our experiences are genuine and substantial, that they are valuable not only to ourselves but to the whole world. And for us all to have had so many deeply personal and profound experiences it’s no surprise, though a shame nonetheless, that we’re always at each other’s throats, in a constant state of conflict. We are hurt and hurt, over and over from the day we are born. If only we would take the time to bond over our isolation, the world might just warm a little more. A beautiful line from The School of Life on Kierkegaard’s consideration of love has stuck with me ever since I heard it:
“For Kierkegaard, our goal should not to be to create a world in which everyone gets exactly what they deserve; it is to try to ensure that as many of us as possible get the kindness that we need”. (Botton, 2022)
We all cope with our cruxes our demons in deeply personal ways, as De Botton puts it, “our survival strategies tend to outlive the original situation for which they were devised, they go on to have an afterlife which is hugely destructive” (Botton, 2024). And as a result of this, some of us find religion, an external placement of purpose. To instead of holding it close, we remove our purpose and place it above, amongst the stars, in the palms of an almighty.
Søren Kierkegaard was himself a deeply depressive and anxious person, in fact coining the term “angst”. He truly struggled with matters of faith, morality, and divine expectation, in his works he went on to explore said themes, one of which I shall be citing as my main literary resource — “Fear and Trembling”.
I find myself relating heavily to the Danish philosopher and his works, morality and faith have always occupied a space in my mind, and so I am eager to express his opinions and perspectives unto the world and provide my own personal opinions also. Though it is worth noting that his works are pieces of historical philosophical literature, a tough consumption for many. I am of the belief that this presents a problem. I recognise my privilege in the ability to analyse his work, but for millions of people across the world, this is not an option. Philosophy in its evolving state up to now has and is aristocratic. It does in fact repel many and does exactly what so many philosophers aim to defeat. It makes life much harder; to open rapport with the public and facilitate philosophical debate, the subject must evolve. It must rid itself of tradition. The evolution of philosophy and concepts such as morality progress through input. The more people who can express and discuss their beliefs the better, resulting in a rounded and progressed realisation of concept. For me film is the perfect medium for philosophy, and yes, I do believe that film can in fact be a form of philosophy. A point of view I will explore further alongside a literary resource published by The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, titled ‘Philosophy of Film — 7. Film as Philosophy’.
As a lover of film, especially ‘weird’ films, I have of course come across the discography of Yorgos Lanthimos. His unique approach to cinema and exploration of interesting topics/themes have not ceased to capture my attention, his films are all inspiring and thought provoking. ‘The Killing of a Sacred Deer’ just like Kierkegaard’s ‘Fear and Trembling’ explores morality, faith and purpose. A true delve into the human experience. Comparing wildly different mediums discussing similar themes should make for an interesting realisation and philosophical thought experiment.
Kierkegaard having grown up in an immensely wealthy Christian family amidst early 1800’s Copenhagen, experienced death frequently, by the age of 22 all of 7 siblings barring one brother had died. This experience undoubtedly impacted his faith, with him going on to produce copious works exploring this finite end. He despised the Catholic Danish Church as an institution but was in fact a religious man. “For him, Christianity was a religion of extreme surrender to a theology of almost peasant like simplicity” (Botton, 2015). He had no desire to explain nor justify his attachment to the religion but instead suggested that one seeking devotion to the religion should take a “leap of faith”, coining the phrase. Instead of utilising logic and attempting to explain and confirm the existence of a god, one should dive headfirst into the concept of an almighty being - God, “‘to have faith is to lose your mind and to win God’ —The Sickness unto Death - 1849” (Botton, 2015).
In “Fear and Trembling” Kierkegaard explores the complexity of faith through the lens of Abraham, a man who is asked to sacrifice his own son, Isaac, at the command of God. It’s this story which Kierkegaard uses to explore the morality of faith and blind devotion, presenting the concept, “teleological suspension of the ethical”. It’s here that Kierkegaard argues that faith can at times demand a suspension of perceived typical societal and universal norms, of righteous moral ethics. The actions of Abraham are of course free of universally accepted norms, to sacrifice another, especially one’s own kin, is not accepted culturally, and may never be. But despite this, Abraham defies norms in the name of divine duty and attempts to sacrifice his son, being prevented from doing so at the last moment by an angel of the lord. It’s upon reflection of this paradoxical act that Kierkegaard presents the idea that faith is entirely subjective and personal to the individual observing, that faith is fundamentally not something which is backed by reason but in a complete and utter commitment to God. Kierkegaard presents the case that there are two spheres of existence, ethical and religious. In the “ethical sphere” a person abides by universally accepted norms of justifiable actions, that which benefits society as a whole, to do good. The “religious sphere” however is free from such norms and requires the “leap of faith”, it requires a person to move beyond such constraints and instead focus entirely on an intimate relationship with the divine.
It is Kierkegaard’s belief that this “leap of faith” taken by Abraham is fundamental to an authentic religious belief, that to truly devote yourself to the almighty, one most move past rationality, to embrace absurdity and doubt. For me I see this “leap of faith” as a removal of internal purpose, as a means of coping, to relinquish your own being at the behest of an all-knowing all-powerful being, in a sense, makes things much simpler. To incubate, nurture and establish a purpose from within is a tricky task too say the least, some go their whole lives without finding their purpose. Abraham’s faith is battered by crippling anxiety and isolation because his experience is entirely lonesome, his relationship with God is personal to him and so no one else can in anyway validate or justify his actions. It’s this individual that Kierkegaard names the “knight of faith”, a person of utmost devotion and commitment to God despite rational and societal pressures, someone who is willing to accept the isolation of it all. Though before achieving ‘true faith’ one must experience “infinite resignation” states Kierkegaard, that in order to even achieve such, a person must first be willing to give up everything, all worldly possessions and attachments out of pure and utter devotion.
“Fear and Trembling” highlights the incredible condition of true faith and its sparsity; something found only in those willing to embrace profound uncertainty and potential isolation. Kierkegaard is critical of “easy faith”, the faith of the masses and what’s societally accepted, arguing that true faith and belief is much more difficult and requires a deeply personal struggle with fear, doubt, and even ethical boundaries. Kierkegaard presents faith as a dynamic journey, a deeply personal experience which demands both acceptance of sacrifice and the unknown.
It’s easy to label Abraham as a man who has done bad, to attempt to sacrifice your own son would generally speaking be seen as a bad thing, but this implies that there are universal laws of righteousness, of good and evil. I find myself gathering with the emotivists in my belief that moral judgements are actually expressions and projections of emotions, they are not beliefs but instead emotional responses to a concept. A moral judgement is not of any definitively objective value, of course it has social merit and betters’ society, but its social benefits are entirely subjective. Murder being bad is not a definitively true statement, it is subjective and merely an expression of distaste almost as if to say, “I don't like murder”. This indefinability and obscurity of morality is ever daunting, to really consider the idea that you are not good or bad and that ultimately your actions are entirely up to you is as frightening as it gets; this is the power in which religion fuels it’s seemingly eternal flame. To externalise and project your purpose and moral compass towards a God is to rid yourself of free will, to instead of braving the storm alone as a true “knight of lone” would, you seek a companion of the soul, loneliness is dangerous road and to have God is to never be alone.
There is something to be said for the accessibility of philosophical discussion, in Kierkegaard’s time much of it came from philosophy books and religion, but these weren’t and aren’t inclusive, many non-religious folks and those who struggle to read academic texts were in a sense isolated from philosophical debate. As times have changed and technology develops, generally speaking, accessibility of all things is increasing, including philosophy. Film being in my opinion the biggest and best modern inclusive medium for philosophical exploration. In an article published 2004 by The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, titled “Philosophy of Film”, the author Thomas Wartenberg, highlights the historical hostility between philosophy and the arts, referring back to ancient Greece where “Plato banished poets from his ideal city in The Republic — To a large extent, this is because philosophy and the various artforms were perceived to be competing sources of knowledge and belief. Philosophers concerned to maintain the exclusivity of their claim to truth have dismissed the arts as poor pretenders to the title of purveyors of truth” (Wartenberg, 2015). The paper goes on to highlight how some philosophers believe that film serves more of a pedagogic or heuristic role as opposed to be directly engaging in philosophy as a form of thought experiment. I see this differentiation as a complete waste of time, a focusing on irrelevant detail. What this essay reaffirms for me is that films can and do engage with the viewers, it provokes thoughts, considerations, makes you asks questions and if this isn’t philosophy then what is. The problem with philosophy as a subject is that it’s up on a peddle stool, it should be on the floor I think, for all to touch and prod and look at. Films are incredibly inclusive, for blind people there’s still an audio element, for the deaf there’s subtitles, it’s consumable for dyslexics, it’s an easily consumable medium. A compelling and interesting film can even tame those struggling with Attention Deficit Disorder. As more and more philosophical films are produced and made readily accessible, I do believe that the stigma or fear surrounding the discussion of philosophical topics will fade.
Films promote ethical awareness. Purpose, morality and faith are ever evolving concepts and how we as people perceive and interpret them changes over time. This evolution in my opinion is not a bad thing, nor is it necessarily good, merely part of human evolution. What is good though, is more and more individuals having access to explore different ethical and moral theories, opening discussion and fueling progress. As someone who considers themself deeply empathetic due to having considered so many perspectives and experiences, it’s my assumption that this increased accessibility of philosophical themes will increase general empathy across populations. The wiser and more considered we become, the kinder we should be. AI is here and it’s not going anywhere, there are always new and emerging areas for discussion and equipping mankind with the toolset to explore these philosophically, well that really is a necessity. It should be the purpose of all philosophers and creatives. Without having watched hundreds if not thousands of films in my life, would I even be here now writing this essay exploring the human experience.
Through themes of guilt, retribution, fate and cosmic punishment, Yorgos Lanthimos’ “The Killing of a Sacred Deer” (2017) is an exploration of human morality, posing the question can justice truly be served.
Doctor Steven Murphy is portrayed as a God-like figure to those around him, stating his opinions as universal truths, dictating the actions of others. Whilst performing surgery drunk a patient of his (Martin’s father) dies. The film goes on to explore the bond between Steven, Martin and Steven’s family. Lanthimos uses a variety of tools including character development, camera work and lighting to establish an order to the world reaffirmed by the actions of those within. All whilst building anticipation as Steven’s family begin to experience sensory motor loss leading to the finale whereby Steven must sacrifice one of his family members in order to save the rest.
Throughout the film, references to classical literature and Greek tragedies are present namely the story of King Agamemnon who is forced to sacrifice his daughter in order to appease the Greek goddess Artemis. Just like King Agamemnon and Abraham, Steven must atone and pay the ultimate sacrifice. Martin’s demand of pure unwavering emotionless action highlights the fragility of human morality, producing his own purpose of justice and enacting such vengeance. The intersection of religion, faith and human morality is an eternal consideration much like the concept of a god in all aspects. In the present day we consider this, in the 1800’s Kierkegaard considered this and as far back as The Bible’s creation and beyond, human beings have posed the question of whether justice can in fact ever truly be solved and whether human morality is right. It’s a question of a paradoxical nature. To ask if such is right whilst maintaining the consideration that right being an emotional response is unquantifiable, speaks to its evaluability. Perhaps what is only right is to consider righteousness, the consideration of morality alone speaks to having such.
Through Steven the film explores the frailty of human purpose. Right from the jump Steven’s fate is doomed, to be presented as an almighty power leaves no room for progress, he can only maintain or fail, the latter of which inevitably occurs. He is a man with God like presence whom one might argue in God’s case also, is not ready to face the music as it were, to face the consequences of his actions and be held accountable. As the film progresses his existential purpose becomes clear, to confront his powerlessness at the whim of cosmic forces. Much like Kierkegaard’s proposal of “infinite resignation” Steven must give up all worldly possessions and attachments including those that reside within, namely: his obsessive compulsion for control and order, his guilt and his role as family protector which is corrupted into that of judge, jury and executioner.
Exploring said themes and emotions can be a difficult task which Lanthimos does exceedingly well via the use of space and camera work. The positioning of objects, subjects and camera shots in exquisite harmony is a key hallmark of Lanthimos’ work and “The Killing of a Sacred Deer” is no exception. The characters within the world lack empathy and intimacy, traits we perceive to be authentic as a viewer, Lanthimos’ choice to design sets of a similar sterile nature add to the void of warmth, of kindness and love. I suspect he does this to reaffirm the perspective that morality and purpose are subjective, that in his world much like our own, there is no definable right or wrong, merely cold emotionless states of play, of action and reaction. The shots are often of large open spaces with a wide lens, with little to no decoration, belittling the characters within. Even the smaller warmer sets feel off, awkward, fabricated and cramped. Uneasy is the word most would use to describe a scene from his discography, a master he is.
As leader and protector of the family, they devote their faith unto Steven, but as his vulnerability becomes more apparent the family’s perception alters, their actions change. As their faith wanes chaos ensues highlighting just how fragile the bonds of human connection are when challenged. The film compels you to consider, to ask questions, its outcome is an ushered push towards philosophical debate, taking the standpoint that there are no defined universal truths, only events.
Lanthimos’ masterpiece is an excellent example of modern philosophy. Whether you consider the film to be philosophy or merely a creative medium which points you in the direction of philosophy, for me it has the same outcome. You are more cultured, knowledgeable, aware. Assuming you paid attention of course, you will have questions, thoughts, all of substance, of pure, real and appreciable value. Just now having these considerations betters’ society, whether subconsciously or otherwise, your world view has altered. You have become better equipped at exploring philosophical themes, which I think we can all agree, regardless of political views, is a good thing.
I am of the belief that yes, faith, morality, purpose and philosophy as concepts are definably coping mechanisms, used as a means for navigating through the murky waters of the human experience. They are most definitely valuable to people, because they make life bearable, without purpose what drives a person, without a god how can one comprehend tragedy, and without morality why even bother at all. To equip oneself with the necessary tools to make the world a better place is a purpose we can all strive to achieve. I encourage anyone and everyone to explore philosophy through whichever medium(s) suits you best. Are they definitively good things to have (faith, morality, purpose), I could not possibly say, that would contradict my universal beliefs, but what I can define as being good is having the knowledge of said topics and concepts so that you may formulate your own beliefs.
-
Bibliography (Botton, 2022) watch?v=9oIDVxTHsUA.
Kierkegaard on Love (2022). October. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/
(Botton, 2024) ALAIN DE BOTTON: WE LOOK FOR FAMILIARITY NOT HAPPINESS IN RELATIONSHIPS (2024). Great Company. September. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2mea6WdEI8.
(Botton, 2015) PHILOSOPHY - Soren Kierkegaard (2015). School of Life. June. Available at:
(Wartenberg, 2015) Wartenberg, T. (2015) Philosophy of Film. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/film/.