If philosophy is judged by its action on the world, its hour has passed: those who truly transform it are elsewhere, and the engaged philosopher has become a commentator.

Objects to

Who transforms the world today, and through which lever? Technical expertise designs the means, institutional power decides, organized collective action shifts the balance of forces. The philosopher may be learned, in history, in logic, even in law; but he masters none of these three levers, where things are actually decided.
When he nevertheless wants to bear on public life, he becomes a media figure: war on Monday, school on Wednesday, artificial intelligence on Friday. It is the charge brought against rhetoric, producing persuasion without knowledge; the modern commentator falls back into it, reigning over while celebrity does the work of competence.
Whoever refuses that role fares no better: his social critique stays in journals read by his peers. Between the TV set and the seminar room, where is the promised transformation? The weapons of criticism have, on their own, almost never sufficed to overturn an order.

Therefore So judging philosophy by what it changes would amount to condemning it: the world would transform itself without it, and its 'engagement' would swing between commentary and inaudibility.

Possible resolutions of the objection

Your choice is recorded in your profile, like a questionnaire answer.

Challenges

Transform, not merely interpret

Problems

Understanding or transforming For everyone or for the few