Julius Caesar is said to have been an Epicurean, but it isn’t known how serious he actually was about it beyond a single statement. Specifically, Caesar said that he didn’t believe death is a punishment because he was an Epicurean.

If he kept with the Epicurean school observantly, he wasn’t necessarily logical in every area. The Epicureans thought some knowledge can be worthless for a person to have.

According to Torquatus as quoted by Cicero - the Epicureans never undertook any line of questioning or attempt to gain knowledge without answering the following first:

• What exactly am I setting out to ascertain or conclude?
• What method do I plan to use for reaching my conclusion?
• Would it be useful to pursue this knowledge?

In addition, an Epicurean would have employed the epistemology of Democritus - that true knowledge is only ascertained through aesthesis, prolepsis, or pathe.

Put simply in English:

• Grip in the sense of contact with an object via touch, sound, or another faculty, and ascertaining an apparent fact about a thing from that (IE: a ball is round and bounces)
• Universal assumptions or agreements among humans across various cultures, like courage is a virtue
• Personal beliefs

However the last of them needs additional qualifying. Because Democritus didn’t teach his students that things are true simply by virtue of belief. He taught that belief is the weakest form of trying to establish a fact, and should honestly be taken as possibly true, but also possibly false. The only reason pathe was included was for the furthering of human knowledge by trying to prove one’s beliefs.

If Julius Caesar was a fairly observant Epicurean - this can give us an idea of his logic.