Of course philosophy develops. Otherwise philosophy would stagnate, but that’s not the case. Hence I consider the deeper question to be your second question: Does philosophy make any progress?
Any answer to this question presupposes an agreement about how to measure and how to evaluate this development. Otherwise we would only continue the outdated discussion about “philosophia perennis”.
A possible measure is to sample a class of representative problems from philosophy and to determine the degree of their solution. That’s an approach following the paradigm of problem and solution.
Candidates for such sample of problems are – in random order - the mind-body problem, the problem of free-will versus determinism, the existence of universals, the ontology of the micro-world, the limits of human knowledge, to characterize the philosophical methodology, etc.
Later philosophers always have the advantage that they can read what their predecessors have thought. Later generations see the prejudices and implicit assumptions of former scholars. Hence they have the chance to avoid the errors of the precedessors. But it is always impossible to recognize the blind spots of oneself.
Therefore I expect the development of philosophy to go on forever.
The concept of progress (SEP) is often treated as a meta-narrative. From WP:
A metanarrative (also meta-narrative and grand narrative; French: métarécit or grand récit) is a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience, or knowledge, which offers a society legitimation through the anticipated completion of a (as yet unrealized) master idea.
As such, it depends entirely on what you mean by "progress". I have an illuminating book on the topic that explores the historical development of the idea of progress, but mine is quite old and there are many. One contemporary example seems to be The Idea of Progress (2017) (GB) by Robert Nisbet. In fact, it's a common title on Google Books. What do you mean by "progress"? From the SEP article:
Philosophical proponents of progress assert that the human condition has improved over the course of history and will continue to improve. Doctrines of progress first appeared in 18th-century Europe and epitomize the optimism of that time and place. Belief in progress flourished in the 19th century. While skeptics of progress did exist alongside its supporters from the beginning, it was not until the 20th century that theorists backed away en masse from the notion. Many 20th-century thinkers rejected the notion of progress after horrendous events such as the two World Wars, the Holocaust, and the use of nuclear weaponry... In general, writings on progress tend to bear a close relationship to the environment in which they were produced. Because of the strong connection between doctrines of progress and historical events, this article is organized by time and place.
That is to say, there is great variance in a response to the question, and some thinkers deny "progress" exists at all. Until that question is resolved, the question of how philosophy fits in the meta-narrative can't meaningfully be answered. (It also opens up the metaphilosophical box of strife requiring an adequate answer to "What is philosophy?")
Progress gets a meaning when there is a goal, a destination, otherwise it's just an abstract concept. Philosophy has, in general, lost its destination, it is applied mainly as an analytical tool to furnish our intellectual vanity.
I was asked to provide a convincing argument. I will justify the use of "analytical tool", "vanity" and I will paste a story.
the quality of being worthless or futile; incapable of producing any useful result; pointless.
Most professional philosophers of today say that, with regard to the great questions, "the answer is that there is no answer."
Once upon a time, there was an Athenian soldier called Socrates inspired to do philosophy. Socrates taught the young aristocrat Plato. Plato taught the doctor’s son Aristotle. And Aristotle taught Alexander, son of Philip, King of Macedonia. Alexander went forth and conquered most of the known, and some of the unknown, world, in the name of the Greek language, culture and philosophy. In conquering a swathe of the world, Alexander became known as "the Great". So we can see the sort of influence doing philosophy can have.
It depends entirely on how broad is your interpretation of the word progress. You can consider progress in a number of dimensions. Take, for example, accessibility. Without doubt philosophy is a vastly more accessible subject than is was fifty years ago, when, as a teenager, I had access to perhaps half a dozen out-dated books in my local library.
Even if you interpret progress narrowly as referring only to the progression of mainstream ideas, there are still different dimensions to consider. Measured purely in terms of output, there is a progressive increase in the total sum of published papers. You might say that the availability of new material is not necessarily a sign of progress if the material itself is of poor quality or doesn't lead to breakthroughs. However, there are plenty of other fields of effort in which you have to persevere before you find valuable results. Consider the tons of valueless material processed in mining for diamonds, for example. A huge effort was expended in developing string theory in physics, which has never lived up to the hopes that were had for it, but it is progress nonetheless because you have to explore new terrain in order to find your way around- think of all the time spent discounting dead-ends when looking for the source of the Nile.
Both the question, and the linked article misunderstand, I would argue, the nature and purpose of philosophy, as well as the extent to which scientific progress is definitional of science.
Scientific progress is a measure of the organized, systematic, rule-governed and objectively certifiable increase in the size and scope of a unified body of factual knowledge. There's no direct analog in the world of philosophy. Philosophers do create new sciences, all the time, some successful, and some less so, so there's a temptation to call that philosophical progress. But solving a philosophical problem removes it from the realm of philosophy. It doesn't change the discipline of philosophy itself.
Ultimately, the success of philosophy at any given moment in time is how well and how productively it helps us engage with the world as we experience it at that point in time. Philosophy is cyclical, because history is cyclical. If you perceive history as a linear progression, then you perceive the same in philosophy. Conversely, if you view history as a decline, you are likely to see philosophy in the same light.
No. As a subject it will not develop. But in the case of many people the way of thinking will change and in their case it will develop into another subject called spirituality. Because, like other subjects philosophy is also for seeking the truth. But “What is to be known (the Ultimate Truth) has already known” and if it develops, it will take people only to some dreamworld which is useless to laymen. And then it can only be called change; not development.
If we can extend the words of Ramana Maharshi, we can conclude that the development of philosophy has already ended. Otherwise the new subject and its benefits would not have been known.