Synopsis
Human names can be used as another universal language which, in contrast to mathematics which describes nature, can serve to describe history. I made a little effort to put the idea into practice, and the fruit is published here.

1. The Universality of Names
Were there a call for justice, a simple question, "But what is justice in the first place?" would cause a moment of awkward silence after which people would spend an eternity trying to agree on a single definition, or they could just go home after agreeing that they could not agree. But if someone said, "Let's talk about Abraham Lincoln," people would not have much trouble at least in identifying the man. When engaging with the ties between words and what they mean, we see one end of a cord fastened to the word "justice" and the other end disappearing into the darkness beyond a great distance, but when we see the cord tied to the word "Abraham Lincoln", we find the other end of the cord directly fastened to one specific historical figure, so we can be sure about, when we use the word "Abraham Lincoln", what it means, unlike when we use such vague and intricate words as "justice", "love", "liberty" or "ideal president".
Moreover, this tie between one specific name and one specific person does not get lost in translation. The meaning of the word "liberty" that appears in the speeches of John F. Kennedy and that of the word "Freiheit" that appears in Mein Kampf may differ in a way, but when the word "Abraham Lincoln" is uttered, it always indicates the exact same person regardless of the race, age or nationality of the speaker.

2. Shared Knowledge
The word "Abraham Lincoln" means one specific historical figure, that is right. But what is this one specific historical figure? It is Abraham Lincoln. It is, then, no different from saying that Abraham Lincoln means Abraham Lincoln. It gets stuck in tautology without explaining anything.
But that is not how names work. In fact, when someone suggests talking about Abraham Lincoln, we can even casually guess that he wants to start a discussion about the American Civil War. The information the name of a person conveys includes the person's birth, race, nationality, face, preferred ideas, role in history, historical reputation and much more: when a famous name is mentioned, we respond in the context of our shared knowledge about it. When Gödel wrote, for example, to his friend that he would follow Leibniz rather than Spinoza, it would not have made any sense had the friend known nothing about both philosophers; he mentioned Leibniz as a representative of the teleological cosmology and Spinoza as that of the mechanical cosmology, assuming his friend's learning.
The shared knowledge about a name, therefore, comprises the facts about the person behind the name. But when employing the term "facts", we must be careful to define it. If someone claimed that Lincoln was the greatest president of the US, it should be just his opinion, not a fact. But if someone said, "Many people and historians have been considering Abraham Lincoln to be one of the greatest presidents of the US," now it could be a fact, because he was just referring to the existence of a good reputation of Lincoln. And remember Gödel's mention of Leibniz and Spinoza, in which the thoughts of two philosophers were treated as shared knowledge; we do not know which cosmology will eventually prevail, but we can at least be sure that Leibniz thought that teleology was indispensable while Spinoza thought that his pantheism was logically intact. In this case, we are treating other people's thoughts as palpable facts.
When some facts about a person are widely shared, people's judgements about these facts become themselves other facts which can be incorporated into shared knowledge, and in the context of shared knowledge, known names work as the symbols of what the persons behind the names represent.

3. Categorisation (Tagging)
Since people came to, if partly, appreciate Kant's First Critique, it has been acknowledged that the truth does not actually come out of the well as a naked woman but rather as an invisible man: to recognise him, we need to wrap him in a sheet, so that we could see a man-shaped sheet moving to and fro even if the body itself were invisible.
Likewise, when we recognise a man, we recognise only the tags our consciousness attaches to him, not the man himself; that we share some facts about a man means that we agree to attach the same tags to the same man. And when one tag is attached to many people, it becomes a category.
Bearing that in mind, remember Thomas Carlyle's famous claim that the history of the world is but the biography of great men. Apart from his blameable indifference towards great women, what does it suggest? If there were incredible polymaths who have read and understood all the biographies of all great men and women, could a list of the names of great men and women be the purest form of describing history? I can imagine a historian pointing at the name of Julius II with a suggestive grin beside another historian who in turn points at the name of Felice della Rovere while gracefully nodding as if he were saying, "I know, I know," but the exchange of such a grin and a nod cannot lead to one unified view on the history of the world unless they share not only historical facts but also the same historical interpretations. Considering that there is already a large number of great men and women, and the number is only to grow hereafter, it seems the biography of great men and women is getting even more lengthy, and therefore the history of the world is going to be even more difficult to grasp.
But what if history were nothing but the repetition of the same story played by different actors? Reading through thick biographies of thousands of actors to deeply understand each one's life and personality sounds burdensome, but if we were only to know who played Macbeth and who played Macduff, it would be much easier.
What is crucial for us to share history in the same way, if adopting the idea, is to see the names of great men and women through the same categories, as if we shared biscuit cutters of the same shape and made biscuits of any flavour in the same shape.
And, as mentioned in the synopsis, I made my little attempt at such categorisation and am curious to know if the result of my attempt, the list, could make sense to other people since it perfectly makes sense to me.
If it appears to be indecipherable, please skip unknown names and try looking up familiar ones - your favourite philosophers, favourite composers, etc.

P.S.
I wanted to make the list comprehensive as much as I could, but many important names are still missing due to my shallow knowledge. And there could still be errors in categorisation. I will make some corrections later.