It depends on what you mean by "philosophy." Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, every single philosopher or person has pretty much always described philosophy as something different. It's rather amusing to see video of them all answering differently. According to some definitions out there, I'd say philosophy has failed pretty badly. According to other definitions, I think philosophy has done rather well.
For me, personally, I consider "philosophy" to be extremely broad. Philosophy, most importantly, is not taking a philosophy class, nor is it reading philosophy classics, or necessarily reading what is considered "philosophy" in current academia. Philosophy is questioning and trying to make sense of the world. "The unexamined life is not worth living." It's literally about loving wisdom literally here "philo-sophy," which is not the same as loving knowledge. Wisdom is about realizing questioning the world, being humble, admitting ignorance, about being open-minded to other explanation and other possibilities, and having a lot of knowledge and experience to back this up. Most people who are great thinkers, great writers, great artists, display philosophy. There's a reason we hand out Philosophy Doctorates.
So to me, "philosophy" has been greatly instrumental to human society. Philosophy brought about the scientific method, and the earliest scientists were also pioneers in philosophy. Newton wrote a lot of philosophy, and also happened to basically start the most incredible scientific revolution in known history. Today, in the scientific field, many scientists think philosophy is dead. And I think this is a ridiculous claim. Paradigm shifts and new understandings do not happen without a philosophy, nor philosophers. Individually, philosophies may have issues, philosophers will have faults, but collectively, this still has an impact upon the social and scientific landscape. Martin Heidegger provides a great example of this, as he has influenced a lot of fields, from literature, to psychology, and even artificial intelligence. I'd even argue that he, in some ways, provides the initial philosophical landscape to understanding quantum mechanics, in something other than mathematics. To give you a very solid example of this, in 1972 Hubert Dreyfus wrote a book called, "What Computer's Can't Do," in which he assailed the then efforts of computer scientists to mimic human intelligence. He was a Heideggerian, and he went at the problem in a way which completely showed the faults of the ruling scientific paradigm over artificial intelligence. He was instrumental in a paradigm shift which helped see computer's get a lot more intelligent. It's a really great book, amended several times and now it's, "What Computers Still Can't Do," and is almost as much a book about what it means to be human as what it means for a machine and a computer to be a machine and a computer.