Happiness, and whether to pursue it

In a recent article on happiness, Shirley S. Wang of the Wall Street Journal writes that

Happiness research, a field known as "positive psychology," is exploding. Some of the newest evidence suggests that people who focus on living with a sense of purpose as they age are more likely to remain cognitively intact, have better mental health and even live longer than people who focus on achieving feelings of happiness.

She then goes on to talk about Eudaimonia,

"Eudaimonia" is a Greek word associated with Aristotle and often mistranslated as "happiness"—which has contributed to misunderstandings about what happiness is. Some experts say Aristotle meant "well-being" when he wrote that humans can attain eudaimonia by fulfilling their potential. 

The point of the article is trying to be happy is not the point, leading a fulfilling life that in turn makes you happy is the point.  Reading it, I wondered what the Stoic take on this would be.

I think the Stoics would have mixed feelings about this article.  A "sense of purpose" is usually a good thing, because that phrase carries a moral connotation.  Getting rich, sleeping with hot chicks, winning fame would not normally be considered a sense of purpose.  Making the world a better place in some specific way is, I think, what a sense of purpose is all about.  We have to be careful, though, lest the pursuit of the sense of purpose devolve into meaningless goals.  Coincidentally, the xkcd webcomic had a similar point to make last week:

The relevant point is actually in the hover-text:

I never trust anyone who's more excited about success than about doing the thing they want to be successful at.

These are all good points.  Stoicism doesn't really stress having a focussed sense of purpose, but knowing how you want to make the world a better place can only be helpful for your own happiness and the world itself.