I would find it odd for a writer who was very influenced by philosophy to reject it outright as having no place in Christianity. How then did he eventually end up leaving Christianity for Montanism? You can read in his post-Montanist works (if you really want to...) his description of the Trinity as sharing of the substance of the father in descending order, such that they are not homoousios as we understand it, but having His divinity apportioned to them in keeping with their closeness to the divinity.
Here's an illustration from the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which shows his conception to be quite inconsistent with Christian doctrine (which, again, since he wrote it after his conversion to Montanism, should be neither surprising nor even much of a cause for concern; or at least it wouldn't be if it weren't for the fact that there are still groups out there, like the Mormons, who teach something very similar, considering it to be the 'restoration' of true Christian theology, not realizing that it comes from a man who by that point was a non-Christian, as Montanism had been condemned by the Church as early as the 170s at a synod in Hierapolis, decades before he converted to it...but anyway...):
I'm no philosophy expert, but this looks an awful lot to me like something akin to a kind of 'budding off' of God/s, which is surely a feature of some kind of pagan philosophy (I'm no historian of philosophy, but the source says it comes from Stoicism, so...okay). So I would be interested to know when exactly Tertullian said the quote in the OP. If it was before his conversion to Montanism (c. 207), then it might have a different meaning for us than if it is after that time. I have seen a range of dates on that particular work, some of which would have been after his abandonment of Christianity.
Anyway, as to the general question, like anything else it depends. Many who objected to the Nicene Creed accused HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic of introducing unwisely into Christianity pagan philosophical concepts, but the difference is that he gave them an orthodox Christian definition, such that their adoption protected the faith, rather than deforming it. And he also wrote famous defenses of his use of language, such as his explanation of the Nicene Creed known as
De Decretis, giving all who read them a chance to see why his use of these terms were not some kind of victory for paganism
. So rather than judging philosophy as a thing, I would rather judge its use. I think philosophy for its own sake is useless and ridiculous, but that could be said about almost anything.
I certainly don't think you need to be a philosopher to be a good theologian or anything like that, but neither does that mean we ought to exalt those who reject learning, as is common in some traditions (those usually called 'low church', or even 'primitive'). Some are more knowledgeable and some are less so, but the same God is the God of everyone.